State v. Pramod Kumar), whereby the application requesting for an inquiry re
Case Details
Court No. - 68 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42677 of 2022
Legal Reasoning
Applicant :- Dare Lal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Verma,Anil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mahendra Tripathi Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Mahendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the accused persons and Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned AGA for the State. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed assailing the order dated 02.12.2022 passed by Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.27/Special Judge (POCSO Act, Exclusive Court), Agra in Session Trial No.29 of 2015 (State vs. Pramod Kumar), whereby the application requesting for an inquiry regarding documents submitted by the accused has been rejected. The brief facts of the case are that the first information report was lodged on 21.10.2014 with respect to the incident dated 18.10.2014 alleging therein that the informant's 17 years old daughter, namely, Km. Preeti was enticed away by one Pramod Kumar. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 15.01.2015 and trial in the case has been commenced and Dare Lal has been examined as PW-1. The victim herself has been examined as PW-2 and thereafter, the evidence of prosecution is closed and opportunity was provided to accused persons to produce witnesses. The witnesses from the side of accused were examined. Thereafter, an application was filed by accused Pramod Kumar for summoning few witnesses, who were public servant. The aforesaid application was partly allowed vide order dated 11.07.2022, directing the accused persons for producing witnesses in defence on six dates. The aforesaid order was challenged before this Court by means of filing an application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.25889 of 2022, which has been disposed of vide order dated 10.10.2022 with a direction to the applicant therein to ensure the presence of himself, witness Ramdatt and Ramcharan, who were private persons and after their evidence, the applicant therein was free to move an application before the court below for summoning the witnesses, who were public servants. Thereafter, the trial proceeded accordingly. Subsequently, on 02.12.2022, an application was moved on behalf of the informant alleging therein that the accused Pramod Kumar has not produced his passport as well as other documents before the court concerned and certain forged documents have been placed before the court in order to prove himself innocent, therefore, the court below may direct inquiry of the aforesaid document and direct the accused Pramod Kumar to produce the document as detailed in the application. The aforesaid application was rejected by the court concerned vide order dated 02.12.2022, hence the present application has been filed challenging the aforesaid order dated 02.12.2022. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the aforesaid order has been passed without application of judicial mind and without assigning any reason for the same. He further submits that while rejecting the application of the applicant, the court concerned has not analyzed the fact that fraud has been played by the accused and certain documents, which are required for proper adjudication of the matter have not been placed before the trial court, hence the aforesaid order may be set aside and the accused may be directed to produce the passport as well as other documents as detailed in the application and an inquiry be conducted with respect to the documents placed by the accused persons through Naval Kishor, who has been examined as DW-4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant by submitting that the order impugned passed by the court below is legal and valid. The court concerned while rejecting the application of the applicant has passed the detailed order mentioning therein that the charges were framed on 18.02.2015, prosecution evidence was recorded on 01.06.2015, the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have already been recorded on 13.06.2022 and from 07.07.2022 till 11.11.2022, defense witnesses have been produced by the accused persons, thus ample opportunity has been provided to the prosecution as well as the informant to cross examine the witnesses, so produced by the accused persons. The case is at the stage of argument and the counsels for the accused persons had already placed their arguments and on 02.12.2022 was a date fixed for argument of counsel for the informant, however, instead of placing argument at this stage, an application has been moved by the counsel for the informant requesting for detailed inquiry of certain documents. It has also been mentioned in the order impugned that as per the court's action plan, this matter being the very old was to be decided this year itself. The prosecution side has been given ample opportunity to place evidence, however, in case counsel for the prosecution disputes any document as produced from the side of the accused, they are at liberty to do the same and adduce evidence proving the same. The parties were also granted liberty to place written submissions before the court. Learned AGA lastly submits that in the present case, the evidence is complete and the trial is nearly going conclude, but earlier for the said facts, no complaint has been moved by the applicant, therefore, the impugned order dated 02.12.2022 has rightly been passed by the concerned court below. Hence, no interference is required by this Court at this stage. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as material available on record prima-facie, the concerned court below has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application of the applicant. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 02.12.2022 passed by the concerned court below. Therefore, no interference is required at this stage.
Decision
In view of the above, the application is, accordingly, dismissed. The present application is delinked from Application U/S 482 No.- 18813 of 2018 (Dare Lal vs State Of U.P. And 3 Ors ). Order Date :- 14.3.2023 Jitendra/- Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad