Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Manoj Kumar vs State Of U P And Another

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|23 August, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2803 of 2018 Revisionist :- Manoj Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Aditya Kant Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present criminal revision has been filed to quash the order dated 21.05.2018 passed by the A.C.J.M., Court No. 4, Agra in Criminal Case No. 270 of 2009 (State Vs. Manoj Kumar), arising out of Case Crime No. 64 of 2009, under Sections- 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and ¾ D.P. Act, Police Station- Shahganj, District- Agra by which the learned Court below has rejected the application filed by the present applicant under Section 91 Cr.P.C. seeking summoning of a document from the employer of opposite party no. 2.
The document is claimed to be the application form, wherein the opposite party no. 2 had disclosed her status to be that of a divorced lady. It is thus submitted, once that document is brought on record it would establish that the opposite party no. 2 was never married to the applicant.
The claim of the applicant apart, at this stage, the learned Court below has rejected the application on the ground that the stage in the trial is only for cross-examination of opposite party no. 2 by way of prosecution witness. Therefore, the learned Court below has observed that the application that has been and the evidence that is being proposed to be led would only be defence evidence and that evidence may be filed at the appropriate stage, which is yet to be reached.
The aforesaid reasoning cannot be faulted.
It is not for the applicant to force production of a document before cross- examination of the prosecution witness. He may either choose to cross- examine the prosecution witness or waive his right in that regard.
In view of the above, the present criminal revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed with the observation that in the event the applicant seeks production of the document referred to his application filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C., it would be open to the applicant to file such an application and seek production of such evidence, at the stage of defence evidence.
Order Date :- 23.8.2018 Abhilash
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Manoj Kumar vs State Of U P And Another

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
23 August, 2018
Judges
  • Saumitra Dayal Singh
Advocates
  • Aditya Kant Sharma