Quashed

Rakesh Kumar Verma v. State Th.Police Station

J&K HC10 Nov 2021CRMC/62/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of J&K quashed the impugned order of the Special Excise Mobile Magistrate that rejected the petitioner's summons application under section 540 Cr.P.C. The Court held that material witnesses could not be dismissed solely due to delay without recording satisfaction on materiality, and directed the trial court to summon them.

What did the court decide?

The appellant petition is disposed of and the impugned order is quashed. The trial court is directed to summon PW-Naveen Sharma, PW-Mohd. Yousuf, and PW-Manmeet Singh.

Rakesh Kumar Verma Vs State Th.Police Station — Criminal Trial and Appeal | J&K HC (2021)

¶1

Sr. No. 23

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU

¶3

CRMC No. 62/2019 CrlM No. 214/2019[1/2019]

¶4

Rakesh Kumar Verma

¶5

.....Appellant/Petitioner(s)

¶6

Through :- Mr. Anil Verma, Advocate

¶7

v/s

¶8

State of J&K and others

¶9

.....Respondent(s)

¶10

Through :- Mr. Aseem Sawhney, AAG for R-1

¶11

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

¶12

ORDER

¶13

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 23.07.2018 passed by the court of Special Excise Mobile Magistrate, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as trial court) in case titled ‘State vs. Neeraj Chandail and anr.’

¶14

1. The petitioner/complainant had filed the application for summoning of Sh. Naveen Sharma (I.O.), Sh. Vishal Sharma (S.H.O), Sh. Mohd. Yousaf (S.P.O) and Sh. Manmeet Singh (S.P.O) under section 540 Cr.P.C but it was rejected by the learned trial court.

¶15

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only ground on the basis of which, the application filed by the complainant/petitioner under section 540 Cr.P.C was rejected is the delay in laying the motion for summoning of the said witnesses.

¶16

2 CRMC No. 62/2019

¶17

Mr. Aseem Sawhney, AAG has taken neutral stand but he submits that the Investigating Officer is the material witness and should have been summoned by the trial court.

¶18

Heard and perused the record.

¶19

From the order impugned, it is evident that the learned trial court has rejected the application on the ground that the statements of the accused have been recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C and the

¶20

witnesses sought to be summoned were the Police witnesses and the prosecution has been negligent in contesting the case.

¶21

Be that as it may, once the witnesses are the material witnesses, then the said witnesses can be summoned at any stage even before pronouncing the judgment.

¶22

A perusal of the challan reveals that the PW-Naveen Sharma is the Investigating Officer who has conducted the investigation of the case, PW-Vishal Sharma is the S.H.O and has recorded the satisfaction with regard to the challan whereas, the other witnesses PW-Mohd. Yousaf and PW- Manmeet Singh are the witnesses of the seizure memo as well as disclosure statements also. So far as, PW-Vishal Sharma is concerned, his evidence may not be a material for just disposal of the case but so far as, remaining three witnesses are concerned, they are the material witnesses.

¶23

A perusal of the order passed by the learned trial court reveals that learned trial court has nowhere recorded its satisfaction as to

¶24

3 CRMC No. 62/2019

¶25

whether the testimony of these witnesses was material for just disposal of the case or not. More so, merely on the account of delay, said application could not have been dismissed.

¶26

In view of the above, the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as such, the same is quashed. Learned trial court is directed to summon three witnesses namely PW-Naveen Sharma, PW-Mohd. Yousuf and PW-Manmeet Singh and for that purpose,

¶27

Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) concerned shall get the summons from the trial court and the learned trial court shall make

¶28

all possible efforts to conclude the examination of these three witnesses on the three dates of hearing to be fixed by the trial

¶29

court after the receipt of this order.

¶30

¶31

The present petition, is accordingly, disposed of.

¶32

(RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE

¶33

JAMMU

¶34

10.11.2021 Neha

¶35

Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No

Rakesh Kumar Verma v. State Th.Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar Verma v. State Th.Police Station

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

Mohd.Sharief Vs Abdul Rashid and Ors.

Rohit Saini and Others Vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Th Incharge Police Station Domana Jammu and Others

Manohar Lal Vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Th Secretary to Govt Home Department

Arun Singh Andotra Vs Reena Jasrotia and Ors.

Akhter Hussain Shah Vs State of J and K Th. S.S.P.Police, Anti Corruption Bureau

Parshotam Kumar Vs State Th.Home Deptt.and Ors.