Allahabad High Court
Chhotanney @ Laxman vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. ... on 6 May, 2022
Bench: Brij Raj Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?
Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 859 of 2021
Revisionist :- Chhotanney @ Laxman
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Bhagwati Prasad Nigam
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Jairam Bharti
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Heard Sri Bhagwati Prasad Nigam, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Jairam Bharti, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Manoj Singh, learned A.G.A.
This criminal revision has been preferred with a prayer to allow the revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 25.10.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Hardoi in Special S.T. No. 208/2017, arises out of Case Crime No. 297 of 2017, under Section 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Sandila, District Hardoi and give the opportunity to the revisionist for cross examination of witness i.e. P.W.-1 in the interest of justice.
The revisionist filed this application on 08.10.2021 with the averment that the case was going on and was fixed for evidence on 29.09.2018. P.W.-1 Poonam was examined and certain questions were asked but certain relevant questions could not be asked by the counsel. The application recites that the revisionist wants to cross-examine P.W.-1 on his expenses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The Court dismissed the application on 25.10.2021. Being aggrieved against the said order the revisionist has filed the present revision.
The opposite party no.2 also appeared before this court through counsel and filed counter affidavit. In para 3 of the counter affidavit the opposite party no.2, who is the P.W.-1 has stated that she has solemnized marriage with the revisionist in a temple and both are living together peacefully as husband and wife. In para 5 of the counter affidavit she has stated that she has no objection in case the application is allowed.
Looking into the averments and statement may be opposite party no.2, it is worth to mention that the revisionist and opposite party no.2 have solemnized marriage and are living together peacefully as husband and wife. Earlier the F.I.R. was lodged, however, the statement of P.W.-1 was recorded but as per the submission of learned counsel for the revisionist certain questions are relevant to be asked that is why on his own expenses revisionist wants that the P.W.-1/opposite party no.2 may be summoned before the court below and she may be cross-examined so that purpose of interest of justice may be served. It is peculiar case in which revisionist and opposite party no.2 are living happily as husband and wife and if the application is allowed then in the interest of justice the case would be decided after recording cross-examination of opposite party no.2.
In view of the aforesaid factual background, I allow this revision and I direct the court below to summon the opposite party no.2 i.e. P.W.-1 for further cross-examination on the expenses of the revisionist.
The present revision is allowed.
Order dated 25.10.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Hardoi in Special S.T. No. 208/2017, arises out of Case Crime No. 297 of 2017, under Section 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Sandila, District Hardoi is set aside.
Order Date :- 6.5.2022
Abhishek Singh
