Harish @ Ghirau Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Faizabad and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 797 of 2026

¶3

Harish @ Ghirau Prasad

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Faizabad And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Onkar Nath Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 16

¶8

HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

¶9

Heard Sri Onkar Nath Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner as also Sri Rao Narendra Singh, the learned A.G.A.-I and Sri Dinesh Singh Rana, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

2. The petitioner has filed this application with the following main prayer:

¶11

"... it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 06.08.2025 passed by Civil (Judge Junior Division) /F.T.C (Women), Ayodhya in Complainant crime nо. 292/2024 (State vs. Vipin @ Deshraj Sahu), under section - 498 (a), 323, 504, 406 of 1.P.C., & 3/4 of D.P. Act at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Ayodhya/Faizabad; as well as the Order dated 22.01.2026; passed by the Additional Session Judge Room No. Nine (9), Ayodhya in Criminal Revision No. 313/2025 (Computerised Case No. 330/2025) (Vipin @ Deshraj Sahu Vs. State) contained as Annexure No. 1 & 2 to this petition.

¶12

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass a suitable direction to the concerned court's below to Reconsider the application under section 348 B.N.S.S (Earlier under section 311 Cr.P.C) to recall concerned Prosecution Witness for Further Cross - Examination."

¶13

NA528 No. 797 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the application under Section 311 CrPC filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the court below without application of mind. He has submitted that a relevant question was to be asked, but the same was not asked by the counsel. Therefore, the petitioner has moved an application to recall PW1 for cross-examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the relevant question regarding the fact stated in the First Information Report pertaining to theft of jewelry was to be asked, but the same could not be asked by the counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajaram Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar and another, 2013 AIR SC Crl 1746 (para 23) .

¶16

On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that PW1 was cross-examined by the petitioner six times, and the evidence of PW1 was closed on 19/07/2022. Thereafter, PW2, PW3, and PW5 were examined. After three years, the petitioner moved an application under Section 311 CrPC for recalling the PW1 for crossexamination. It has been submitted that the petitioner has availed ample opportunities, i.e. six times to cross-examine PW1, and since the opportunity was availed six times, it cannot be said that injustice was caused to the petitioner. The court may not allow the petitioner to recall the witness after such a long lapse of time, though sufficient time was given to the petitioner for cross-examination of PW1. In support of his submissions, Shri Rao Narendra Singh, learned AGAI, has relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ratan Lal vs. Prahlad Jat and others, (2017) 9 Supreme Court Cases 340, (para Nos. 17 to 21) .

¶17

Sri Rao has also submitted that delay has also been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and it has been observed that it is a tactic to derail the trial after such a long lapse of time, when the five witnesses have been examined.

¶18

After going through the record, I find that PW1 was cross-examined six times, viz. on 25/03/2019, 18/04/2019, 15/07/2019, 04/02/2023, 10/09/2021, and 19/07/2022. The evidence of PW1 was closed on

¶19

NA528 No. 797 of 2026

¶20

3

¶21

19/07/2022. Thereafter, four witnesses were examined by the trial court. At the belated stage, when the matter is fixed for the proceedings under Section 313 CrPC, the petitioner has moved an application under Section 311 CrPC. The court is of the opinion that the petitioner is adopting delaying tactics. Having considered all these aspects, and after reviewing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ratan Lal (Supra), as well as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Raja Ram Prasad Yadav (supra), the application is devoid of merits, therefore, it is dismissed .

¶22

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶23

March 9, 2026 A.Nigam

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Harish @ Ghirau Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Faizabad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harish @ Ghirau Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Faizabad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Buddhesh Kumar vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and

Gaurav @ Gaurav Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Anoop Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Shailendra Kumar Srivastava and Anr. vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Secrtt. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Vivek Kumar Gaur vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Asimun Nisha vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Balrampur and 3 Others