Allahabad High Court
Vinod Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 April, 2024
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:66440 Court No. - 77 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2609 of 2023 Revisionist :- Vinod Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ajeet Kumar,Chandra Prakash Srivastava,Yogesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gaurav Singh Chauhan Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Chandra Prakash Srivastava, the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Deepak Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Gaurav Singh Chauhan, the learned counsel representing opposite party-2.
2. Perused the record.
3. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 31.03.2023 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khurja in Complaint Case No.1032 of 2015 (Vinod Singh Vs. Raj Kumar) under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. Police Stationk-Khurja Nagar, District- Bulandshahr whereby application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by revisionist for recalling P.W.1, Vinod Singh before court below has been rejected.
4. Learned counsel for revisionist in challenge to the order impugned contends that reasoning assigned by court below for rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by revisionist is not only illegal but also irrational. Consequently, the order impugned is liable to be set aside by this Court.
5. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel representing opposite party-2 have vehemently opposed this criminal revision. They submit that parameters with regard to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 311 Cr.P.C. stands crystalized by the judgement of Apex Court in Raja Ram Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and Another (2013) 14 SCC 461. On the above premise, it is thus urged that none of the parameter laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned judgement for exercising jurisdiction under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is satisfied in the present case. Neither the material fact, which could not be put to the witness nor the relevancy of the same has been mentioned. It is thus urged that since application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was itself devoid of material particulars, therefore the same was liable to be rejected. Thus no illegality has been committed by court below in rejecting the same. As such, no interference is required by this Court.
6. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for revisionist could not overcome the same.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Deepak Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Gaurav Singh Chauhan, the learned counsel representing opposite party-2 and open perusal of record, this Court finds that court below has rejected the application filed by revisionist under Section 311 Cr.P.C. primarily on the ground that neither in the application the material fact which could not be put to the witness has been mentioned nor there is recital regarding relevancy of the said fact in the proceedings pending against him. As such the parameters laid down by Apex Court in undermentioned judgement did not stand satisfied. Court below has also held that marking of exhibits is a procedural factum to be performed by the court but that by itself is not a ground to summon the witnesses. In view of above, court below has neither committed a jurisdictional error in passing the order impugned nor it has exercised it's jurisdiction with material irregularity so as to warrant interference by this Court.
8. As a result, present criminal revision fails and is therefore liable to be dismissed.
9. It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.4.2024 YK