Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs State Of U.P. And Another
2019 Latest Caselaw 6524 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 65
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29352 of 2019
 

 
Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Gupta
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Bipin Kumar Tripathi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

Heard Sri Bipin Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 01.07.2019 passed by Additional District and Session Judge/F.T.C. 1st Shahjahanpur in S.T. No No. 370 of 2011 (State vs. Rajesh Kumar Gupta) under sections 363, 366, 376 IPC arising out of Case Crime No. 715 of 2009, Police Station Khudaganj, District Shahjahanpur with a further prayer that a direction may be issued to the trial court to decide the trial simultaneously along other co-accused persons summoned under section 319 Cr.P/C. to avoid the de-nove trial proceedings and also a prayer is made to stay the proceedings in this case till the disposal of this application.

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the impugned order has been passed erroneously by the trial court allowing the application 105 Kha of the prosecution whereby the prayer was made to separately try the case of the applicant accused and his file be separated from other co-accused who have been summoned under section 319 Cr.P.C. It is argued that the impugned order would result in denovo trial of the other co-accused, hence impugned order should be quashed.

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the impugned order.

I have gone through the impugned order. It is recorded in it that the case of the accused-applicant has reached the stage of argument while the proceedings of trial of other co-accused who have been summoned under section 319 Cr.P.C. has been stayed by this Court in Criminal Revision No.2545 of 2014 (Munni Devi and 12 others) vide order dated 26.10.2015, therefore, it is directed that the file of the present accused be separated from the file of the other co-accused so that the trial court may proceed expeditiously in the trial of accused applicant. I find no infirmity in the impugned order because the trial of the other co-accused has not yet started.

In view of the aforesaid, the application is rejected.

Order Date :- 1.8.2019

AU