Mo. Taj v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri Ajai Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present application has been filed for the following main relief:- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the order dated 27.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge/POCSO Act, Court No.1, Lucknow in Session Trial No.581/2016, titled as State V/s Mohd. Taj, arising out of Case Crime No.700/2014, under section 363, 366, 343 IPC and section 11/12 POCSO Act, Police Station-Madiyaon, District-Lucknow, pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge/POCSO Act, Court No.1, Lucknow, as contained in Annexure No.1 to this petition. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the learned trial court i.e. learned Additional District Judge/POCSO Act, Court No.1, Lucknow to provide the opportunity to the petitioner for cross examination of P.W.6, in the interest of justice. "

By means of present application the applicant has assailed the order dated 27.11.2024 passed in Session Trial No. 581 of 2016 (State vs. Mohammad Taj) by the learned Additional District Judge/POCSO Act, Court No.1, Lucknow (in short 'trial court'), whereby the trial court has rejected the prayer for giving an opportunity of cross examining of Investigating Officer (in short 'I.O.')/P.W.6. The order dated 27.11.2024 reads as under:- "27-11-2024- vkt cpko i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dh rjQ ls izkFkZuki= vUrZxr /kkjk 311 na0iz0la0 ekeys ds xokg ih0MCyw0&6 fujh{kd@foospd eqdqy izdk'k oekZ ls izfrijh{kk fd;s tkus gsrq izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA cpko i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dh rjQ ls izkFkZuki= vUrZxr /kkjk 311 na0iz0la0 nsrs gq, dgk x;k fd fnukad 25&11&2024 dks lk{kh ih0MCyw0&6 fujh{kd eqdqy izdk'k oekZ dh U;k;ky; }kjk eq[; ijh{kk vafdr dh x;hA fu;r fnukad dks izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo}ku vf/koDrk chekj gksus ds dkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k mifLFkr ugha vk lds ftl dkj.k muds }kjk gkftjh ekWQh@LFkxu izkFkZuki= fn;k x;k ftls U;k;ky; }kjk fujLr djrs gq, lk{kh ls ftjg djus dk volj lekIr dj fn;k x;kA eqdnesa dks xq.knks"k ds vk/kkj ij fuLrkfjr fd;s tkus gsrq lk{kh mijksDr dks ryc dj lk{kh ls ftjg fd;k tkuk furkar vko';d gSA vr% mijksDr rF; ,oa ifjLFkfr; ksa dks ns[krs gq, lk{kh ih0MCyw0&6 fujh{kd eqdqy izdk'k oekZ dks ryc dj muls ftjg fd;s tkus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gSA vfHk;kstu dh vksj ls fo}ku fo'ks"k yksd vfHk;kstd }kjk izkFkZuki= ij vkifRr i`"Bkafdr djrs gq, ekSf[kd :i ls dgk x;k fd fnukad 25-11-2024 dks lk{kh ih0MCyw0&6 fujh{kd eqdqy izdk'k oekZ dh U;k;ky; }kjk eq[; ijh{kk vafdr dh x;hA dkQh bartkj ds ckn cpko i{k }kjk gkftjh ekWQh@LFkxu izkFkZuki= fn;k x;k ftls U;k;ky; }kjk [kkfjt djrs gq, lk{kh ih0MCyw0&6 ls ftjg djus dk volj lekIr fd;k x;kA cpko i{k }kjk mDr izkFkZuki= ek= ekeys dks foyafcr djus ds mn~ns'; ls fn;k x;k gS] ftls fujLr djus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;kA lquk rFkk i=koyh dk voyksdu fd; kA i=koyh ds voyksdu ls fofnr gS fd U;k;ky; }kjk izLrqr ekeys ds foospd@fujh{kd ih0MCyw0&6 dh eq[; ijh{kk fnukad 25-11-2024 dks vafdr dh x;h tks tuin&lhrkiqj ls U;k;ky; ds le{k lk{; gsrq mifLFkr vk; kA fu;r fnukad dks lk{kh ih0MCyw0&6 ls ftjg djus gsrq cpko i{k dk dkQh bartkj fd;k x;k] ysfdu cpko i{k }kjk lk{kh ls ftjg u dj lkW;dky LFkxu izkFkZuki= fn;k x;k ftls U;k;ky; }kjk [kkfjt djrs gq, lk{kh ih0MCyw0&6 ls ftjg djus dk volj lekIr fd;k x;kA i=koyh ds voyksdu ls fofnr gS fd i=koyh vfr izkphu gS rFkk ,D'ku Iyku ds vUrxZr vkrh gS] ftlds lanHkZ esa ekuuh; mPPre U;k;ky; o ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk okn dks Rofjr xfr ls fuLrkfjr fd;s tkus ds lanHkZ esa funsZ'k fn;s x;s gSaA vr% mDr rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr; ksa ds izdk'k esa cpko i{k }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuki= vUrxZr /kkjk 311 na0iz0la0 fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA i=koyh fnukad 29&11&2024 dks 'ks"k lk{; gsrq is'k gksA vfHk;kstu fu;r fnukad gsrq vU; 'ks"k lkf{k;ksa dh lk{; gsrq mUgsa tfj;s lEeu ryc djkuk lqfu'pr djsA "

Upon due consideration the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and the preposition settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav and another, (2016) 2 SCC 402; Swapan Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2019 (14) SCC 328, Hanuman Prasad (Supra), Natasha Singh vs. CBI, (2013) 5 SCC 741 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 828 : 2013 SCC OnLine SC 444, State of Haryana vs. Ram Mehar and others; (2016) 8 SCC 762, Swapan Kumar Chatterjee vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2019) 14 SCC 328; Varsha Garg vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 986 and as also by this Court in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 274 of 2022 (Ram Nayak Singh vs. State of U.P. & Another), this Court finds that interference in the matter is required. It is for the following facts/reasons:- (i) The examination-in-chief of I.O./P.W.6 was concluded on

25.11.2024 and on 25.11.2024 the adjournment on the ground of illness was sought by learned Counsel for the applicant, but the trial court rejected the adjournment application and also closed the opportunity of cross examining of I.O./P.W.6. (ii) For recall of order dated 25.11.2024 and permit the learned Counsel for the applicant to cross examine the I.O./P.W.6, the applicant was preferred on 27.11.2024 i.e. within two days, by the applicant. (iii) The trial court on the same day i.e. 27.11.2024 rejected the application. (iv) From the aforesaid, this Court finds that there is no intention of the applicant to delay the proceedings in issue.

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated

27.11.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, POCSO, Court No. 1, Lucknow, in Sessions Trial No. 581 of 2025 (State Versus Mohammad Taj), is hereby set aside.

The trial court would fix a date for cross examination of I.O./P.W.-6 by the applicant and if possible the I.O./P.W.-6 be cross examined, on the next date fixed i.e. 29.01.2025, (as informed by learned Counsel for the applicant). On the date fixed, if the learned Counsel for the applicant/defence shall fails to cross examine I.O./P.W.6, the trial court shall proceed in the matter without providing further opportunity to the applicant. For this purpose Rs. 3,000/- shall be deposited by the applicant before the trial court, for the purpose of meeting out the expense of concerned court witnesses and if some amount remains the same be provided to District Legal Service Authority.