Allahabad High Court
Manoj Kumar vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 15 January, 2025
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:9008 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39290 of 2024 Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr.Ashok Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1.
2. Perused the record.
3. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by accused-applicant Manoj Kumar challenging the order dated 21.10.2024 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Varanasi in S.T. No.196 of 2017 (State Vs. Manoj Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No.491 of 2017 under Sections 363, 366, 376, 344, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Maduwadeeh, District Varanasi whereby the application (Paper No.23 Kha) under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by accused-applicant has been rejected.
4. At the very outset, the learned AGA has raised a preliminary objection by submitting that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed by accused-applicant at a very belated stage. The deposition of all the prosecution witnesses were recorded before the court below followed by the statement of accused-applicant himself under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
5. On the above premise, the learned AGA submits that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was engineered by accused applicant only to delay the trial. It is then contended by the learned A.G.A. that application under section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by accused-applicant before court below does not disclose the specific questions proposed to be put to the prosecutrix/P.W.1. In the aforesaid application the only disclosure is regarding the facts on which the proposed questions are to be put to the prosecutrix. Since specific questions have not been mentioned in the aforementioned application, therefore, there is no pleading regarding relevance of the same in the light of the deposition of P.W.1. Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajaram Prasad Yadv Vs. State of Bihar and another 2013 (14) SCC 461, the learned AGA submits that only when the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. discloses questions proposed to be put to the witness and also the relevance of the same, on the test laid down by Apex Court in aforementioned judgment for judging the bonafide of an application under section 311 Cr.P.C. can be looked into.
6. Referring to the provisions contained in Section 35 (5) of the POCSO Act, the learned AGA submits that the Act itself imposes a restriction upon Court not to recall the prosecutrix repeatedly.
7. On the above premise the learned AGA thus submits that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by accused-applicant before the court below was misconceived. Consequently, no illegality has been committed by court below in rejecting the same. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in present application.
8. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the preliminary objection raised by learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not only borne out from the record but furthermore the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant. In view of above, no good ground exists to entertain the present application.
10. As a result, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
11. It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 15.1.2025 Md Faisal