Neeraj vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 3969 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 67
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1603 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Neeraj
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

Heard SriAmit Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

By means of the present 482 Cr.P.C. application, the applicant is assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 07.12.2022 passed by Additional District & Session Judge, Court No. 30, Agra whereby the applicant's application no. 37-Ka was rejected by concerned Judge Agra.

I have perused the order impugned in the 161 statement the prosecutrix has specifically attributed role of ravishing upon the applicant Neeraj. In the 164 statement she states that she has asked one Pankaj to inform her parents about her this condition. There is no allegation has been cautioned against the Pankaj, she is consistently accusing the applicant for ravishing her and applicant who has been charge-sheeted. From the impugned order, it is evident that Investigating Officer was summoned and was examined in the trial and number of occasions has been granted to the applicant to produce the defence witness (if any) in support of the accused but he seeking the adjournment time and again just to linger on the matter.

From perusal of the order and the reasons attributed, I do not find any illegality or perversity and in purpose of with the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Natasha Singh Vs. CBI 2013 0 (SCC) 828 relevant extract of which reads as under :-

"The power conferred under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must therefore, be invoked by the Court only in order to meet the ends of justice, for strong and valid reasons, and the same must be exercised with great caution and circumspection. The very use of words such as 'any Court', 'at any stage", or 'or any enquiry, trial or other proceedings', 'any person' and 'any such person' clearly spells out that the provisions of this section have been expressed in the widest possible terms, and do not limit the discretion of the Court in any way. There is thus no escape if the fresh evidence to be obtained is essential to the just decision of the case. The determinative factor should therefore be, whether the summoning/recalling of the said witness is in fact, essential to the just decision of the case."

Thus, the present 482 application is lacks of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 8.2.2023

Vikram