Dismissed¶19

Shivam Vishnoi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Apr 2026NA528/14475/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS quashing application dismissed; order rejecting Section 311 CrPC recall of P.W.-1 (Sunil Kumar Vishnoi) and P.W.-8 (Naveen Kumar Singh, I.O.) upheld; Sessions Trial No. 34 of 2019; Crime No. 113/2018; Sections 363, 302, 201 IPC; P.S. Rajpur, Kanpur Dehat; no illegality or perversity; application moved only to delay trial; final arguments stage; Chawan Prakash J.; Allahabad High Court; decided April 9, 2026.

What did the court decide?

The learned trial court proceeded in accordance with law; no illegality or perversity was found in the impugned order dated 31.3.2026, and the prayer to set it aside was refused. ¶18

Shivam Vishnoi Vs State of U.P. and Another — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 14475 of 2026

¶3

Shivam Vishnoi

¶4

	Versus ....	.Applicant(s)
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Aradhana Singh, Ruchi Ram Verma	Verma, Siya
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A., Girish Kumar Gupta

¶5

Court No. - 81

¶6

HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Girish Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 31.3.2026 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ramabari Nagar, (Kanpur Dehat) in Sessions Trial No.34 of 2019 (State of U.P. Vs. Shivam Vishnoi) arising out of Crime No.113/2018 under Sections 363, 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Rajpur, District Kanpur Dehat.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to prior enmity regarding ancestral property. It is contended that the applicant neither enticed away the victim (deceased) nor committed his murder. A First Information Report, being Case Crime No. 113 of 2018, under Section 363 I.P.C., was lodged by opposite party No. 2. It is further submitted that the applicant is not named in the said F.I.R., and his name surfaced during the course of investigation. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet against the applicant under Sections 302, 363, and 201 I.P.C. During the trial, charges were duly framed against the accused, and the prosecution examined nine witnesses. It is further submitted that the applicant came to know that opposite party No. 2 had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 26.11.2018, alleging that his son had been kidnapped by Vinod Kumar,

¶10

NA528 No. 14475 of 2026

¶11

¶12

Shivam, Anoop Rathore and Ashish Kumar and had also shown his daughter as a witness therein. The applicant thereafter filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of P.W.-1 (Sunil Kumar Vishnoi) and P.W.-8 (Naveen Kumar Singh, I.O.) for further crossexamination however, the said application was rejected by the learned trial court. It is argued that the factum of filing of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by opposite party No. 2 is highly material and could only be properly elucidated by putting specific questions to P.W.-1 and P.W.-8. However, the learned Sessions Judge, without properly appreciating the relevance of the said aspect, rejected the application in a mechanical manner and he is very adamant to decide the case in a very hasty manner. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A., as well as learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, vehemently opposed the prayer and contended that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. It is submitted that the examination-in-chief of P.W.-1 was recorded on 23.06.2022, and he was duly cross-examined on 06.07.2022. Further, the examination-in-chief of P.W.-8 was recorded on 09.05.2024, and he was also cross-examined at length but the applicant moved an application seeking adjournment, which was rejected by the trial court. The applicant did not challenge the said order at any stage. It is further contended that the present application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been filed at a belated stage solely with the intention to delay the proceedings of the case. Therefore, the present application is liable to be dismissed.

¶14

As per the facts of the present case, it transpires that a First Information Report, being Case Crime No. 0113 of 2018, under Section 363 I.P.C., was lodged by opposite party No. 2 against unknown person. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the applicant. Thereafter, the learned trial court framed charges against the applicant. The prosecution examined nine witnesses, and presently the case is pending at the stage of final arguments. The applicant moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. before the trial court seeking recall of P.W.-1 (Sunil Kumar Vishnoi) and P.W.-8 (Naveen Kumar Singh, I.O.) for further cross-examination.

¶15

NA528 No. 14475 of 2026

¶16

¶17

On examination-in-chief of P.W.-1 was recorded on 23.06.2022. Thereafter, the same was adjourned to another Bench. On 23.6.2022 the P.W.-1 was cross examined. Thereafter on 06.07.2022 further cross examination of this witness was recorded. Similarly, the examination-inchief of P.W.-8 was recorded on 09.05.2024. During his crossexamination, the applicant sought adjournment however, the same was rejected by the trial court. The learned trial court, while passing the impugned order, has assigned cogent and detailed reasons. The applicant has failed to disclose any justifiable ground for recalling P.W.-1 and P.W.-8. The facts and circumstances of the case indicate that the application has been moved only with the intent to delay the trial.

¶18

Upon consideration of the material available on record, this Court finds that the learned trial court has proceeded in accordance with law, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in impugned order. Therefore, the prayer for setting aside the same is hereby refused.

¶19

Accordingly, the application is dismissed .

¶20

(Chawan Prakash,J.)

¶21

April 9, 2026

¶22

Md Faisal

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MOHD FAISAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shivam Vishnoi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivam Vishnoi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Awadesh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhawar Singh and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sumit Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Satyaveer vs State of U.P. and Another

Subhash Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Guddu @ Radheyshyam and Another vs State of U.P. and Another