Allahabad High Court
Ram Krishna vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 3 October, 2023
Author: Rajeev Singh
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:63098 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9394 of 2023 Applicant :- Ram Krishna Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. Present application has been moved by the applicants for quashing the summoning order dated 18.08.2023 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Unnao in Criminal Revision No.125 of 2022 (Sita Vs. State of U.P. and Anr.).
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that private respondent/complainant of the case in question moved application dated 28.07.2022 with the prayer to give opportunity to the applicant/accused persons for cross examination of P.W.-2, namely, Mishri Lal, under Section 246 Cr.P.C. and reply was filed by the applicant, therefore, trial court rejected the application of private respondent on 14.10.2022 with the observation that on 10.07.2017, by way of endorsement in the order sheet, statement of P.W.2 recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C. can not be accepted, and in case, statement under Section 244 Cr.P.C. was not considered, then the opportunity for cross-examination of P.W.2 under Section 246 Cr.P.C. does not arise, therefore, trial court has rightly rejected the application of private respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that a revision was filed by the private respondent which was allowed by the Revisional Court with the observation that statement of P.W.2 was recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C., therefore, adequate opportunity to cross examine him be given to the applicant/accused persons. He further submitted that the Revisional Court failed to consider this fact that statement of P.W.2 recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C. was denied by the trial court by way of endorsement on the order sheet on 10.07.2017, therefore, kind indulgence of this Court is necessary.
5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of applicants and submitted that complaint of case in question was filed by the private respondent under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, P.S.- Safipur, District- Unnao, in which, admittedly, the statement of P.W.2 was recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C. but the cross-examination was closed by the trial court and it was not challenged by the accused persons/applicant, thereafter, complainant herself has moved an application for giving opportunity to cross-examine P.W.-2 by the applicant/accused persons as the same was rejected by the trial court with the observation that on 10.07.2017, statement of P.W.2 recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C. can not be admitted but this fact was not mentioned in the order sheet duly signed by the trial court. He further submitted that in the objection filed by the applicant to the application of private respondent, it is admitted in Para-1 that the statement of P.W.-2 was recorded but he was not appearing, therefore, his cross-examination was on hold, as the applicant/accused persons are not willing to cross-examine the witness, the Revisional Court has rightly allowed the revision of private respondent.
6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of application, as well as other relevant documents, including the order passed by the trial court dated 14.10.2022 as well as Revisional Court dated 18.08.2023, as it is evident from the record that no such order was passed by the trial court in rejecting the statement of P.W.-2 which was recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C. and only a side note is mentioned in front of date i.e. 10.07.2017 that the statement of P.W.-2 recorded under Section 244 Cr.P.C. is not admissible but it cannot be said that this was the order passed by the trial court, therefore, Revisional Court has rightly allowed the revision and there is no illegality in the order, therefore, I am of the view that the present application is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.10.2023 V. Sinha