Dismissed

Deenanath Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Nov 2024CRMP/6/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against orders passing up an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The Court held that since the prosecution failed to avail opportunities to examine witnesses, the accused had no locus standi to make the application, and thus the orders below were without illegality or irregularity needing quashing.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed as sans merit. Interim order dated 05.01.2022 was vacated.

Deenanath Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 5

2024:CGHC:43802

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRMP No. 6 of 2022

¶6

Deenanath Gupta S/o Late Choudhary Gupta, Aged About 54 Years R/o Qt. No. M-105, Rajgamar Colony, District Korba, C.G.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Korba (C.G.)

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner	: Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent/State	: Ms. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer
For Intervenor	Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Advocate

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board

¶13

11.11.2024

¶14

The petitioner has preferred this criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 06.12.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Katghora, District - Korba (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 754/2016 and order dated 15.12.2021 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Session Judge Katghora, District - Korba (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. 33/2021 by which the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the revision filed by the accused in Criminal Case No. 754/2016 order passed on 06.12.2021.

¶15

2 / 5

¶16

Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged by the complainant Mr. Sumer Singh Nayak alleging that the present applicant has treated himself as the son of Mr. Sumer Singh Nayak and by fabricating the documents and nomination form he has obtained employment with SECL Gevra Project being a land displaced person and posted as Loaderman and thus he has committed an offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 486 and 471 of IPC. The complaint was lodged on 02.08.2014 before the Police Station Dipka, District - Korba (C.G.) bearing Crime No. 117/2014.

¶17

The prosecution after usual investigation has submitted the chargesheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Katghora, District - Korba (C.G.). After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused has moved an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. on 04.12.2021 with a prayer to allow the Inspector posted at Crime Investigation Branch Headquarter Raipur and one S.P. Sinde Sr. Manager Rajgamar for recording of the evidence though these persons have not been examined as witnesses, but they are necessary for proper adjudication of trial. The learned Trial Court recorded the finding that the learned Trial Court has already given opportunities to the prosecution on 19.03.2020, 28.11.2020, 21.12.2020, 12.01.2021, 22.01.2021, 06.02.2021, 15.02.2021, 03.03.2021, 17.03.2021, 26.03.2021 and 11.08.2021 to lead evidence, but despite ample opportunities the prosecution failed to examined themselves and accordingly, it has closed the right of the prosecution to lead further evidence vide impugned order dated

¶18

3 / 5

¶19

06.12.2021 and fixed the case for judgment on 10.12.2021 directing the parties to submit written submission.

¶20

The same order was assailed by the applicant by filing revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Katghora which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 33/2021 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 15.12.2021 has rejected the revision and it has recorded its finding that no material illegality and irregularity has been committed by the learned Trial Court in rejecting the said application. These orders are being assailed by the petitioner by filing criminal misc. petition.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. should have been allowed by the trial Court as the prosecution has exhibited the document P/16 wherein the report has been exhibited, but the author of the report has not been examined. Thus, there is valid ground for calling of the person who has submitted the report, thus, he would pray for allowing the petition by quashing the impugned orders.

¶22

On the other hand learned State counsel opposing the submission would submit that it is for the prosecution to move an application for allowing them opportunity to lead evidence, as such the accused has no locus standi to move the said application and this application was filed vicariously just to delay the proceedings, thus, she would pray for rejection of present criminal miscellaneous petition.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the charge-sheet.

¶24

4 / 5

¶25

The record of the case would show that the learned Trial Court has given sufficient opportunities to the prosecution to examine these 2 witnesses, but they have not availed the opportunities and thereafter, the Revisional Court has also dismissed the revision by recording finding that no illegality or irregularity has been committed. From the record, it is quite vivid that the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. cannot be maintainable on the strength of the accused as the witnesses are prosecution witnesses and if the prosecution has not challenged the order of the learned Trial Court closing their right, the petitioner has no locus standi to move the application to examine these 2 witnesses, as such, it is prima-facie reflected that an afterthought story has been projected by the applicant to delay the trial.

¶26

The record of the case would show that the prosecution has lodged the case, therefore, it is incumbent upon them to prove their case and if they are not intended to examine these 2 persons, the accused cannot take advantage of the mistake of the prosecution by taking recourse under Section 311 of Cr.P.C..

¶27

Considering this aspect of the matter that the prosecution has not moved any application to examine the witnesses under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. and in fact the prosecution has not taken any steps to examine the witnesses, therefore, the petitioner has no authority or locus standi to move an application to examine the person who has never been examined before the court. Thus, the application has rightly been rejected by the learned Trial Court, therefore, the learned revisional court has not committed any illegality and

¶28

5 / 5

¶29

irregularity in dismissing the revision. The record of the case clearly demonstrates that no illegality and irregularity has been pointed out by the petitioner which necessitated this Court to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by interfering in the impugned orders.

¶30

Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous sans merit dismissed.

¶31

Interim order passed by this Court on 05.01.2022 is vacated.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶34

Manish

Deenanath Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deenanath Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghuwar Sai Vs Shri Alok Shukla

Ibrahim Khan Vs Shri Avinash Champavat

Ku. Seema Rathore Vs Abinash Mishra

Raja Ram Vishwakarma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Randeep Narang Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Akhilesh Namdev Vs Shahban Khan and Others