Court No. - 64
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36039 of 2019 Applicant :- Jagdish Prasad Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 9 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Verma,Siya Ram Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
The application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 22.8.2019 passed by the Up-Ziladhikari, Tehsil Sirathu, District Kaushambi in Case No.8/17/2013-14 (Case No.T20130242041536), State versus Jagdish Prasad, under Section 145 Cr.P.C., P.S. Saini, District Kaushambi.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A and perused the record.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the order shown to have been passed on 22.9.2019 was actually never passed on that date. It has been pointed out that on the preceding date 8.8.2019 it was clearly shown that the next date fixed was 22.8.2019. Apart from this even in the aforesaid order 22.8.2019 the next date has been fixed as 5.9.2019. Fixing up 5.9.2019 is also sufficient to show that this could not have been fixed on 22.9.2019. Submission is that actually the order dated 22.9.2019 was passed on 22.8.2019. Learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out another very irregular feature in the order sheet. It has been pointed out that on the order sheet dated 14.3.2019 it has been shown that the Presiding Officer was busy in administrative work and a general date 11.4.2019 was therefore, fixed. The contention is that in the aforesaid order dated 22.9.2019 (actual date 22.8.2019) it has been wrongly shown that the application dated 15.2.2018 has already been allowed on 14.3.2019 because on that date the Presiding Officer was busy in administrative work and a general date was given. Learned counsel has also submitted that in the aforesaid order dated 22.8.2019 the opportunity of the first party to cross- examine has also been closed for no rhyme and reasons. Submission is that all these aforesaid features would show that the court below has passed the aforesaid order in a very mechanical manner without application of judicial mind which is likely to result in gross miscarriage of justice.
Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Ordinarily, this Court would have issued notice to the other side before proceeding further in the matter but the submissions as have been made hardly require any hearing from opposite party no.2 and the issues involved relate only to the irregular working and highly irregular maintenance of the order sheet. This Court deems it fit to dispose of this matter right at this stage without issuing notice to the other side. In case this Court issues notice to the other side that would further procrastinate the matter and will shelve the proceeding for an indefinite period of time. It will not be in the interest of justice to either party. Therefore, this Court has proceeded to pass the order in this case after looking into the records.
The least which this Court finds from perusal of the order sheet is that there are serious irregularities reflected in the same. The order sheet of 14.3.2019 and the order sheet of 22.9.2019 ( which is also not the order sheet of 22.9.2019 but appears to be the order sheet relating to date 22.8.2019) also can not be reconciled with each other. Even closure of opportunity of cross-examination appears to be a very irregular order.
This application stands disposed off with the observation that the aforesaid order dated 22.9.2019 or 22.8.2019 whatever it be cannot be sustained and deserves its quashing. The same is being quashed. The court below is also directed to be very careful in future and is also directed to ensure maintenance of its order sheet with proper application of mind. The court below is also directed to proceed strictly in accordance with law as has been provided in the Criminal Procedure Code. If any oral evidence is adduced on behalf of the other side, the applicant shall also be provided adequate opportunity of cross- examination.
\Order Date :- 27.9.2019 CPP/-