Dharmveer Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 500 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 45
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6788 of 2011
 

 
Petitioner :- Dharmveer Singh And Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Lal Chandra Mishra
 
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble S.C. Agarwal,J. 

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S.K. Saroj, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

This Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 5.2.2011 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Agra in S.T. No.532 of 2007 (State Vs. Dharmveer Singh & others) under sections 307/302 IPC, P.S. Pinhat, District Agra, whereby application 112-B under section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning Charan Singh and Indra Prakash for evidence and also for summoning P.W.1 and P.W.2 for further cross-examination was rejected.

Learned counsel for the applicants has not pressed this application in respect of summoning Charan Singh and Indra Prakash for giving evidence. The application has been pressed only in respect of P.W.1 and P.W.2 for further cross-examination. The application 112-B moved before the trial court in this respect was made on the ground that P.W.1 Ram Prakash and P.W.2 Gajendra Singh could not be cross-examined on some vital points and facts, as at the time of cross-examination of these witnesses, the applicants were in jail and they could not properly brief their counsel.

The prayer for summoning P.W.1 and P.W.2 for further cross-examination was refused by the trial court on the ground that these two witnesses have been thoroughly cross-examined and proper opportunity of cross-examination was provided to the defence and there is no reason to summon them again. It was further observed that the accused persons have not indicated the questions sought to be asked from these two witnesses in further cross-examination.

I have perused the application filed by the applicant before the trial court. Only this much is indicated in the application that P.W.1 and P.W.2 could not be cross-examined on some vital points, but no specific questions have been mentioned in the application. Therefore, the application was rightly rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge. In these circumstances, I do not find any good ground to interfere at this stage.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of with a direction that if a fresh application under section 311 Cr.P.C. is moved for further cross-examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2 detailing the specific questions sought to be asked from them in further cross-examination, such application shall be disposed of by the trial court in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 25.3.2011

ss