Allahabad High Court
Ajeet Singh Alias Ajeet Singh Patel vs State Of U.P. on 11 September, 2025
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:161361
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2495 of 2025
Ajeet Singh Alias Ajeet Singh Patel
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Janardan Singh, Raj Kumar Kesari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A., Rakesh Kumar Patel
Court No. - 72
HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 04.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO)-Ist, Prayagraj in S.T. No. 1305 of 2013 "State Vs. Narayan Singh and others", arising out of Case Crime No.59 of 2011, under Sections 304, 325, 323 I.P.C., Police Station Shankargarh, District Prayagraj.
3. Counsel for the applicants submits that the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge rejecting the application of applicant 121-Kha under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for re-examination of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3, 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 the earlier counsel did not examine prosecution witnesses properly and some more important/relevant questions are left to examine by P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 for just and proper decision of the case and fair trial. The questions framed by the applicant are relevant and required to be put up before the P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. The questions are hereunder:
"(i) The question regarding the motive of the incident.
(ii) The question regarding the capability to speak by the deceased Kamlakar Singh.
(iii) It is also the relevant question that under which circumstances the deceased Kamlakar Singh/injured were left alone by the family members for lodging the first information report.
(iv) The question regarding the ante-timing of the first information report is also relevant.
(v) The question regarding the specific role and specific assignment of the weapons to the accused is also the relevant question."
4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the trial court without considering the importance of the question which is necessary to put for examination by the P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3, rejected the application of the applicant.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission and submitted that application of the applicant has rightly been rejected. He next submits that examination of prosecution witnesses was closed in the year 2018 and after six years present application has been moved only to delay the proceedings. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon. Apex Court in AG Vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav, (2016) 2 SCC 402. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are quoted below:
"27. It is difficult to approve the view taken by the High Court. Undoubtedly, fair trial is the objective and it is the duty of the court to ensure such fairness. Width of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is beyond any doubt. Not a single specific reason has been assigned by the High Court as to how in the present case recall of as many as 13 witnesses was necessary as directed in the impugned order. No fault has been found with the reasoning of the order of the trial court. The High Court rejected on merits the only two reasons pressed before it that the trial was hurried and the counsel was not competent. In the face of rejecting these grounds, without considering the hardship to the witnesses, undue delay in the trial, and without any other cogent reason, allowing recall merely on the observation that it is only the accused who will suffer by the delay as he was in custody could, in the circumstances, be hardly accepted as valid or serving the ends of justice. It is not only matter of delay but also of harassment for the witnesses to be recalled which could not be justified on the ground that the accused was in custody and that he would only suffer by prolonging of the proceedings. Certainly recall could be permitted if essential for the just decision but not on such consideration as has been adopted in the present case. Mere observation that recall was necessary ?for ensuring fair trial? is not enough unless there are tangible reasons to show how the fair trial suffered without recall. Recall is not a matter of course and the discretion given to the court has to be exercised judiciously to prevent failure of justice and not arbitrarily. While the party is even permitted to correct its bona fide error and may be entitled to further opportunity even when such opportunity may be sought without any fault on the part of the opposite party, plea for recall for advancing justice has to be bona fide and has to be balanced carefully with the other relevant considerations including uncalled for hardship to the witnesses and uncalled for delay in the trial. Having regard to these considerations, we do not find any ground to justify the recall of witnesses already examined.
28. It will also be pertinent to mention that power of judicial superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution and under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly when there is patent error or gross injustice in the view taken by a subordinate court[47]*. A finding to this effect has to be supported by reasons. In the present case, the High Court has allowed the prayer of the accused, even while finding no error in the view taken by the trial court, merely by saying that exercise of power was required for granting fair and proper opportunity to the accused. No reasons have been recorded in support of this observation. On the contrary, the view taken by the trial court rejecting the stand of the accused has been affirmed. Thus, the conclusion appears to be inconsistent with the reasons in the impugned order.
29. We may now sum up our reasons for disapproving the view of the High Court in the present case:
(i) The trial court and the High Court held that the accused had appointed counsel of his choice. He was facing trial in other cases also. The earlier counsel were given due opportunity and had duly conducted cross- examination. They were under no handicap;
(ii) No finding could be recorded that the counsel appointed by the accused were incompetent particularly at back of such counsel;
(iiii) Expeditious trial in a heinous offence as is alleged in the present case is in the interests of justice;
(iv) The trial Court as well as the High Court rejected the reasons for recall of the witnesses;
(v) The Court has to keep in mind not only the need for giving fair opportunity to the accused but also the need for ensuring that the victim of the crime is not unduly harassed;
(vi) Mere fact that the accused was in custody and that he will suffer by the delay could be no consideration for allowing recall of witnesses, particularly at the fag end of the trial;
(vii) Mere change of counsel cannot be ground to recall the witnesses;
(viii) There is no basis for holding that any prejudice will be caused to the accused unless the witnesses are recalled;
(ix) The High Court has not rejected the reasons given by the trial court nor given any justification for permitting recall of the witnesses except for making general observations that recall was necessary for ensuring fair trial. This observation is contrary to the reasoning of the High Court in dealing with the grounds for recall, i.e., denial of fair opportunity on account of incompetence of earlier counsel or on account of expeditious proceedings;
(x) There is neither any patent error in the approach adopted by the trial court rejecting the prayer for recall nor any clear injustice if such prayer is not granted."
6. Considered the argument raised by counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. The statements of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3, prima facie, disclose that applicant had examined the P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 in very extensive manner. The question framed here more or less has been examined, earlier, all questions are in general is not very material or important for just decision of the case. Moreover, the present application has been moved after about six years for re-examination. No reason explained with regard to delay. It is stated that after change of counsel, he got the knowledge that aforesaid questions are relevant for just decision of the case. This Court does not find any illegality in the order impugned. The rejection of the application moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is just and proper. The applicant has been given sufficient or reasonable opportunity to examine and cross examine the witnesses P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 and the court rightly held that the present application has been moved with malicious intention only to delay the trial proceedings. The trial court while deciding the case has considered the judgment passed by the High Court in Madhusudan Shukla Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2022 (3), JIC 833 and the Apex Court Judgment passed in State of Haryana Vs. Ram Mehar and others reported in JIC 2016 (3) 449. The Court is only to ensure that accused has been afforded reasonable opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and to defend himself. It is also the duty of the Court to ensure that the right to cross examine should not be permitted to use as weapon to delay the disposal of the trial at the mercy of the accused persons.
7. The impugned order dated 04.01.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO)-Ist, Prayagraj, is just and proper and no interference is warranted, at this stage.
8. The present 482 application is, hereby, dismissed.
(Deepak Verma,J.)
September 11, 2025
Meenu Singh
