Court No. - 24
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2646 of 2019 Applicant :- Jiaul Haq Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 15.11.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. Court No.2, Kushinagar, at Padrauna in S.T. No. 294 of 2015 (State Vs. Jiaul Haq) arising out of case crime no. 1634 of 2013, under sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Kaptanganj, District Kushinagar.
The prosecution case is that the opposite party no.2 lodged a first information against the applicant alleging that the daughter of opposite party no.2 Amina Khatoon was married to applicant on 05.01.2013 as per Muslim Customs and due to demand of additional dowry she was done to death on 13.12.2013 by the applicant and his family members.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail since 22.12.2013. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted. Magistrate concerned has taken cognizance in the matter. The case was committed to the court of sessions. Charges were framed against the accused persons. The witnesses namely P.W. Bikau, P.W.2 Noor Alam, P.W.3 Virendra Kumr Gupta, P.W. Hasirunnisha, P.W.5 Dr. L.B. Yadav, P.W.6 Harischand Singh, Deputy Collector, Kanpur, P.W.7 H.M. Ram Mani Upadhyay, P.S. Nawabganj, District Gonda, P.W.8 Ravi Shankar Mishra Dy.S.P. P.S. Cantt. District Gorakhpur. The grievance of the applicant is that the cross-examination of P.W.4 was done on 13.03.2018 and when her chief was recorded the applicant was not present as he was confined in jail, therefore, he moved an application before the trial court to cross examine P.W.4. The trial court vide order dated 15.11.2018 rejected the said application. It is also submitted that the provisions of section 138 of the Evidence Act and further section 311 Cr.P.C. duly provides procedure for cross-examination of any witness at any stage.
Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State-respondent vehemently opposed the contentions and submitted that the applicant has moved the aforesaid application for cross-examination of P.W.4 only with a view to delay the disposal of the trial as the trial is at the concluding stage. The statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. has already been recorded.
I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the impugned order.
From the perusal of the impugned order dated 15.11.2018, it reflects that there is a direction of this Court for disposal of the trial within a period of eight months. The statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. has already been recorded. The case is at the stage of final argument. The opportunity to cross-examine P.W. has already been closed on 14.05.2018, thereafter the prosecution witnesses were examined. D.W.1 has also been examined and during that period the accused person has not moved any application for cross-examination of P.W.4, therefore, it appears the application has been moved by the applicant to delay the disposal of the trial. The case was fixed 24.11.2018 for argument.
In view of above, this Court finds that the trial of the aforesaid case at the verge of conclusion, therefore, the trial court has rightly rejected the application of the applicant. Section 311 Cr.P.C. provides the court to re- examine any witness at any stage, if his evidence is found to be essential for just decision of the case but in the present case, the accused has moved the application aforesaid to delay the disposal of the case.
Accordingly, the application being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 Prajapati [Chandra Dhari Singh, J]