Allahabad High Court
Susheel Shukla vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 April, 2025
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:59635 Court No. - 52 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13195 of 2021 Applicant :- Susheel Shukla Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. None appears on behalf of the applicant to press this application.
3. Heard learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
4. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 22.1.2020 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge Court no. 12, Muzaffar Nagar in S.T. No. 1164 of 2011 (State vs. Meenur Tyagi and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 780 of 2011, under sections 302, 307, 120, 147, 34, 120B, 427 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District-Muzaffar Nagar.
5. As per first information report, which was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant and others that on 11.7.2011 the brother of the opposite party no. 2 along with other family members were going towards Muzaffar Nagar on his jeep, one Maruti Indica was coming in front of his jeep and when the aforesaid Maruti car reached at tricrossing near Rajwahe, one Wagon R car which was coming from the opposite direction saw a truck bearing no. UP-11T 0887 coming from back side, Manoj, Mohit, Upendra, Vinod, Vidit, Harvir and Pramod were travelling in the aforesaid truck, which was being driven by Upendra. The incident took place at 10:30 O'clock in the morning, which was witnessed by opposite party no. 2 and his elder brother of Rajvir Singh and few ladies of the family. After hearing the scream of injured persons, the persons who were present nearby came and with their help the injured persons were taken to the hospital. On reaching the hospital Gaurav Vir, Samarvir, Shyamvir and Ditya were declared brought dead. Rest of the injured persons were under treatment. All the persons were enimical with the brother of opposite party no. 2 and due to enmity one Dharmendra is languishing in jail.
6. After investigation the chargesheet has been submitted on 12.1.2011 and cognizance was taken against the applicant and other co-accused.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that during the course of trial the applicant is in jail and he was shifted to another District Jail Deoria. The applicant was produced before the court below on 18.12.2019 for recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. alleged that he is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant had also moved an application under Section 316(Kha) after changing his counsel with the prayer to grant him an opportunity for submitting his defence, which was rejected by the court below. Challenging the aforesaid order, the newely appointed Advocate has moved another application on behalf of the applicant, alleging therein that he was appointed on the same day, therefore he may be granted some time to produce the defence evidence. He also mentioned in his application that his client is in jail so he needs time to meet him and take his advise but the learned court below without applying his judicial mind rejected his application in cursory and mechanical manner.
8. On the other hand Sri Deepak Kapoor, learned A.G.A. has submitted that earlier one Waqar Ahmad had appeared as counsel for the applicant and took plea that the trial was proceeded at the defence stage but no application was moved by the applicant's counsel requesting for giving opportunity to produce the defence evidence. In the earlier application dated 18.1.2021 neither any order was passed nor any application was given by the applicant for producing the eye witness before the court below, therefore, the defence evidence was closed and the matter was placed for argument. He further submits that in the application as moved by learned counsel for the accused no detail regarding witnesses has been given and the only request was made that he may be permitted to grant sometime to meet the accused for taking his advise. The order also speaks about the directions given by this Court to decide the case at the earliest.
9. As per the observations made by the court below while rejecting the application, it is clear that such application has been moved only to delay the trial proceedings. Even otherwise, this Court finds that the matter is pending since June 2021, wherein on 3.9.2024, 23.9.2021 on the request of learned counsel for the applicant the case was adjourned and again on 7.12.2021 nobody appeared on behalf of the applicant to press this application.
10. After having heard the learned A.G.A. and perusal of the impugned orders, and material available on record, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders are based upon relevant considerations and supported by cogent reasons, there is no abuse of process seen in the impugned orders and hence requires no interference by this Court.
11. The application lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 15.4.2025 Faridul