Rajendra Pandey vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 27032 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:190054
 
Court No. - 89
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36436 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Rajendra Pandey
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Bahadur Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vishwa Deepak Mishra learned AGA-Ist for the State.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated 16.06.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Kaushambi directing him to recall the P.W. 1 Km. Radha Pandey for further cross examination in Case No. 126 of 2016 (State Vs. Rajendra Pandey) under Section 311 Cr.P.C. arising out of Case Crime No.188 of 2016, P.S. Karari, District Kaushambi.

3. Counsel for the applicants submits that the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge rejecting the application of applicant 52-Kha under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for re-examination of P.W. 1, is bad in the eye of law and an abuse of the process of the court. The applicant moved application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on the ground that he has engaged a new counsel as the earlier counsel did not examine P.W. 1 properly. It has been next submitted that in application, he has quoted the question which is required to be asked from P.W. 1 for just and proper decision of the case. These questions have not been asked and examined by earlier counsel.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission and submitted that mere changing of counsel, applicant should not be permitted to re-examine P.W. 1. He next submits that examination of P.W. 1 was closed in the year 2018 and after five years only to delay the proceedings, applicant has moved present application. In support of his submission he has placed reliance upon the judgement of Apex Court in Girish Vs. State of U.P. 2020 SCC Online All 1063 and Veerendradas Bairagi Vs. Shreekant Bairagi 2019 SCC Online M.P. 7006.

5. Considering the argument raised by counsel for the parties and perused the entire record, it is evident that the court has ascertained the objection and also considered the judgment passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court in A.K. Malhotra Vs. H.K. Dass 2008 (4) RCR( Criminal)-65 Hon. the Apex Court in Hanuman Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and others reported in 2008 (4) RCR (Criminal) 823 in which the Hon. Court has held that once the witness was examined in chief and cross examined fully, such witness should not be recalled and re-examined. The order passed by the trial court is just and proper and no interference is warranted, at this stage.

6. The present 482 application is hereby dismissed.

Order Date :- 4.10.2023

Meenu Singh