Manoj Kumar Gupta vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 2908 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Manoj Kumar Gupta vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 January, 2025

Author: Rajeev Misra

Bench: Rajeev Misra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:225
 
Court No. - 71
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32757 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Gupta
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Pragya Pandey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
 

1. Heard Mrs. Pragya Pandey, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

2. Perused the record.

3. Applicant-Manoj Kumar Gupta, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following relief:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the instant Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the Impugned Order dated 30.07.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar, the learned Trial Court, in Sessions Trial No.953 of 2020 (State Vs. Mohd. Asif alias Pappu Smart and Others), Police Station New Chakeri, District-Kanpur Nagar rejecting the Application No. 49 Kha moved by the Applicant.

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 30.07.2024 passed by means of which the Application No. 49 Kha moved by the Applicant has been rejected in an absolutely illegal and arbitrary manner, otherwise, the Applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and hardship and or pass such other and further order with this Hon'ble Court may be deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

4. After some arguments, the learned counsel for applicant fairly submits that she be permitted to withdraw the present application.

5. Learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 does not oppose the prayer made by the learned counsel for applicant.

6. In view of above, this application is accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn.

7. However, in view of the provisions contained in Section 231 Cr.P.C. itself, it is hereby provided that Court below shall defer the cross-examination of PW-1 and shall permit the cross-examination of the concerned witness, after the document desired to be submitted before Court below is filed at the stage of defense evidence, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in three judges Bench judgment in State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568.

Order Date :- 2.1.2025

Imtiyaz