Court No. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 31988 of 2019 Applicant :- Mohit Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the order dated 13.06.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Court No. 1, Gautam Budh Nagar in S.T. No. 503 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No.
499 of 2012 under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., Police Station – Jewar, District Gautam Budh Nagar whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. of the applicant has been rejected by the Trial Court. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Court below to reconsider the aforesaid application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the Trial Court has refused the opportunity to the accused applicant to cross- examine the witness/P.W. 2 who is victim of this case in respect of the site plan and some averments made in the affidavit which is alleged to have been filed by her, therefore, the impugned order should be set aside and opportunity should be granted to the accused applicant to cross- exmine the said witness on the above mentioned point.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the said order and has argued that the same does not suffer from any infirmity.
I have perused the impugned order. It is mentioned in the impugned order that an application, paper No. 58 Kha, was moved by the accused applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. stating that statement of Somwati was recorded as PW-2 who had also filed an affidavit, therefore, several questions with respect to the said affidavit as well as with regard to the site plan were left to be asked, which were very essential. From the prosecution side the said application was opposed and it was argued that all questions were put to the said witness by the defence side. The Trial Court after having perused the evidence on record has mentioned in the impugned order that the PW-
2 is victim who is minor as per the prosecution. Her statement was recorded on 22.05.2015 in two pages. Thereafter, from the side of the defence she was cross-examined and the cross- examination was adjourned due to lack of time and on 25.05.2015 she was again cross-examined at length in six pages. One paper 16 Kha, which is marriage agreement, was also filed. It was marked as Ext. Kha-2 and on that also the defence side has cross-examined at length. The present application has been moved only with a view to delay the proceedings. It is one of the oldest cases, therefore, the said application was dismissed by the Trial Court.
I do not see any infirmity in the impugned order in view of the discussion made above, particularly after having gone through the statement of the PW-2, Somwati, which is annexed at page Nos. 16 to 30. It seems to contain all the aspects regarding which cross-examination has been made.
There is no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the accused applicant.
Accordingly, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 LBY