Allahabad High Court
Gomwati And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 June, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:95466
Court No. - 52
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18462 of 2025
Applicant :- Gomwati And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Lalit Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Certified order-sheet dated 05.06.2025 filed today, is taken on record.
2. Heard Shri Lalit Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Azad Singh, learned AGA for the State as well as Shri Ashish Kumar Gupta (A/A 2600/2014) advocate holding brief of Shri Virendra Kumar Kuashik, counsel for opposite party no. 2.
3. The counsel for the rival parties have made a joint statement that they do not propose to file any further affidavits, thus, with the consent of the parties, the application is being decided at the fresh stage.
4. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants to quash the impugned order dated 18.01.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.05, Mathura in Sessions Trial No.786 of 2023 (State Versus Sunil and another) arises out of Case Crime No.63 of 2019, Under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 504, 506 I.P.C. at Police Station Raya, District Mathura.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that a first information report was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 18.02.2019 being Case Crime No. 63 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 504 IPC against the applicants herein and seven others, pursuant whereto a charge-sheet came to be submitted on 13.05.2019 against applicants under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 504 and 34 IPC on 13.05.2019 and the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Mathura toke cognizance and the case was committed on 09.12.2019 Sessions trial No. 649 of 2019. However, during the pendency of the sessions trial, vide order dated 12.04.2023, the trial of the applicants have been separated and registered as Sessions Trial No.786 of 2023. The applicants thereafter filed an application for trying both the cases i.e. Sessions Trial No. 786 of 2023 as the alleged occurrence related to a cross-case i.e. Complaint Case No. 2091 of 2021 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-first, Mathura which came to be rejected on 13.10.2023. According to the learned counsel for the applicants, the trial court convicted the other accused in the Sessions Trial No. 649 of 2019 vide judgment and order dated 28.07.2023 which was challenged by the said accused before the Hon'ble High Court wherein the record of Sessions Trial No. 649 of 2019 was summoned, an application came to be preferred by the opposite party No.2 being Paper No.12-Kha dated 20.03.2023 before the trial court for recording of the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., an objection to the same was preferred by the applicants being paper No. 13-Ka on 10/11.07.2024. The Court of Additional Session Judge, Court No.5, Mathura on 20.07.2024 proceeded to pass an order for obtaining the original record from the Court for disposing the case. On 20.03.2024 another application being paper No. 12-Kha also came to be preferred followed by another application dated 30.08.2024 to which the applicants filed their objections on 26.09.2024 the Court of Additional Session Judges, Court No.5, Mathura on 18.01.2025 proceeded with the matter for recording of the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
6. Questioning the order dated 18.01.2025, the applicants have been filed the present application.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that there cannot be two different contradictory order, one dated 20.07.2024 and the other dated 18.05.2025. He submits that even if circumstances necessitated for passing of the subsequent order dated 18.01.2025 then the said order ought to have been considered the import and impact of the order dated 20.07.2024 which was passed earlier. Submission is that the order dated 18.01.2025 is not in-conformity with the legal principles.
8. Shri Ashish Gupta holding brief of Shri Virendra Kumar Kuashik on the other hand submits that no prejudice whatsoever is being caused, particularly, when certified copy of the order which is sought to be relied upon there before the Court and this is nothing but a dialectics against the applicants on account of non-participation and avoiding the proceedings, non-bailable warrants have been issued.
9. Learned AGA has supported the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.
11. The facts are not in issue. The only bone of contention between the parties is whether the order dated 20.07.2024 could have been ignored while passing the order dated 18.01.2025 or not. On a pointed query being raised to the learned counsel for the parties as to whether the order dated 18.01. 2025 considers the import and the impact of the order dated 20.07.2024, the answer is negative.
12. In the opinion of the Court, once an order dated 20.07.2024 came to be passed then in case, any deviation was required in a recital ought to have been made in the subsequent order dated 18.01.2025.
13. Looking into the fitness of the matter, the impugned order dated 18.01.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.05, Mathura is set aside.
14. The matter stands remitted back to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law.
15. Since the matter pertains to a trial, thus, technicalities should not come in the way, thus the parties shall furnish the certified copy of the order and self-attested copy of the present application before the court below by 20.06.2025 and the court below shall proceed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
16. Needless to point out that the Court has not adjudicated upon the merits of the case and also on the issue of non-bailable warrants
17. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 5.6.2025
A. Prajapati
