Court No. - 17
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 10166 of 2018 Applicant :- Pokhpal Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking quashing of the order dated 25.1.2018 passed by the Fast Track Court-Ist, Gautam Budh Nagar in S.T. No. 304 of 2014 (State Vs. Pokhpal) under Sections 304-B, 498A IPC arising out of Case Crime No. 125 of 2014, under Section 304B, 498-A IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P./S. Sector 39, District Gautam Budh Nagar, whereby an application moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by the applicant, has been rejected by the court.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the witness Mamta Solanki and Vijay Dhul are witnesses of the prosecution side, which ought to have been examined by the prosecution but they have not been examined. Mamta Solanki is a witness of recovery memo of Dupatta by which the deceased was hanged. Vijay Dhul is Investigating Officer, who had perused the diary written by the deceased.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant stating that the prosecution cannot be compelled to examine any particular witnesses in support of the prosecution's case, who have been named in the charge sheet as witnesses.
Peruse the impugned order, in the said order, the learned court has observed that the accused-applicant shall be provided opportunity to adduce evidence in defense. The witness Mamta Solanki, who is named in the charge sheet, had not been examined by the prosecution but it is privilege of the prosecution to examine any number of witnesses which are named in the charge sheet. Any witness, who is named in the charge sheet, if has not been examined by the prosecution, he could be got examined in defense by the accused side. As regards other witness Vijay Dhul, it is observed that he had perused the diary written by the deceased, which was mentioned by him while submitting affidavit in bail application. The court considered him not an important witnesses to be examined in the present case and, accordingly, application 108- Kha of the accused-applicant has been rejected.
It is settled law that the prosecution has liberty to examine any number of witnesses out of the witnesses who are named in the charge sheet. Besides that, the court has ample power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to examine any other witnesses also to get to the root of the truth of the case. The accused-applicant cannot compel court to examine any particular witness, which has been named in the FIR. The accused-applicant would be at liberty to summon any witness named in the charge sheet in defense, therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order.
The prayer for quashing the impugned order dated 25.1.2016 is refused.
However, it is made clear that in case accused-applicant seeks summoning of any witness named in the charge sheet, the trial shall court allow the same and permit him to examine such a witness.
With the aforesaid direction, this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.3.2018 A.P. Pandey