High Court · 2025

1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Neelesh Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel representing first informant/opposite party-2.

2. Perused the record.

3. Applicant- Ramashish Yadav, who is a charge sheeted accused, has approached this Court by means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and quash the Impugned Order dated 22.04.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge, Chandauli on application no. 123 Kha filed by the applicant in Session Trial No. 34 of 2014 (State versus Manish Kumar Yadav @ Upendra and Others), pending before the Learned Additional Session Judge, Court No. 1, Chandauli, Under Section 302, 120B of IPC, arising out of Case Crime No. 122 of 2013, Police Station- Balua, District- Chandauli. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the entire criminal proceeding of Session Trial No. 34 of 2014 (State versus Manish Kumar Yadav @ Upendra and Others), pending before the Learned Additional Session Judge, Court No. 1, Chandauli, Under Section 302, 120B of IPC, arising out of Case Crime No. 122 of 2013, Police Station- Balua, District- Chandauli, during pendency of the present Criminal Misc. Application before this Hon'ble Court otherwise the Applicants will suffer irreparable loss and Injury. And/or pass such other and further order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."

4. Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 27.9.2013, a prompt F.I.R. dated 27.9.2013 was lodged by first informant/opposite party-2 and was registered as case Crime No. 122 of 2013, under section 302 IPC, Police Station- Valua, District- Chandauli. In the aforesaid F.I.R. three persons who were riding on the motorcycle were arraigned as accused.

5. After aforementioned F.I.R. was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. On the basis of material collected by Investigating Officer during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of three persons is established in the crime in question. He accordingly submitted charge sheet/police report dated 26.12.2013 in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. whereby and whereunder Manish Kumar Yadav, Ramashish Yadav (applicant herein) and Sarita Yadav were charge sheeted under sections 302, 120 B IPC.

6. After submission of aforesaid charge sheet/police report, cogniznace was taken upon same by Jurisdictional Magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction under section 190 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. As such, the charge sheeted accused were summoned.

7. However, as offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, accordingly, concerned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. As a result, Sessions Trial No. 34 of 2014 (State Vs. Manish Kumar), under Sections 302, 120 B IPC, Police Station- Valua, District- Chandauli came to be registered. Concerned Sessions Judge, framed charges against the charge sheeted accused, who denied the same and pleaded innocence. As a result, the trial procedure commenced.

8. During the pendency of trial, an application dated 15.08.2023 (paper no. 109- kha) was filed by accused-applicant Ramashish Yadadav before court below wherein various persons as mentioned in the prayer clause of aforesaid application were sought to be summoned by Court below in exercise of jurisdiction under section 311 Cr.P.C. Since the prayer made in aforesaid application is relevant for the controversy in hand, therefore, for ready reference, the same is extracted herein under: "पपररनप अतत मपनननय नयपयपलय सस अननररध हह कक उक मपमलस कस यरपरर सतयपपन हसतन सवपससतक कमनरल ससधपकनयप सदन कनभररप रपयपनर छतनसगढ 493114 पभपरन कर व एन०टन०पन०सन० कभलपई कस पभपरन मपल लरकडसग व अमबनजप ससमसणट सलकमटसड खपन बडडदप बपजपर भपटप पपरप छतनसगढ कस गसट पपस कमर/ सनपरवपईजर कर एसव पपरर कर सवयस व सहचपलक सररज यपदव पनत बचचसलपल यपदव कनवपसन जहननपर रपनप सहदपनर जनपद गपजनपनर व सनकनल यपदव पनत कवजसनदनपर यपदव कनवपसन भकढयप रपनप खपनपनर जनपद गपजनपनर व शयपमम यपदव पनत शनरपम यपदव कनवपसन नई करट रपनप खपनपनर जनपद गपजनपनर कर सपकन/सफपई कस सससरपन पबनधक/ सपकय तलब करनस व पररककत करपनस कक अननमकत पदपन ककयप जपवस । तपकक नयपय हर।"

9. Aforesaid application was allowed by Court below, vide order dated 30.9.2023 and one of the person mentioned by name i.e. Saroj Yadav in above mentioned application was summoned by Court below under section 311 Cr.P.C.

10. Another application (paper no.111 kha) was also filed by accused applicant whereby plea of alibi raised by applicant was sought to be substantiated by seeking summoning of gate pass employee/supervisor Sunil Yadav and Shyam Babu. However, this application was rejected by Court below by the same order dated 30.09.2023.

11. After the statements of the accused were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., the deposition of applicant-Ramashish Yadav and Saroj Yadav were recorded as D.W.1 and D.W.2., accused- applicant Ramashish Yadav filed an application dated 19.4.2024, praying therein that certain documents mentioned in the prayer clause of this application and one person namely, Mahendra Tiwari be summoned, as a witness in exercise of jurisdiction under section 311 Cr.P.C. For ready refernece the prayer clause of this application is reproduced herein under: " पपररनप अतत मपनननय नयपयपलय सस अननररध हह कक उकपककत सपकय पपत कस सतयपपन व सपकय ससकलन हसतन सवपससतक कमनरलस ससधपकनयप सदन कवमररप रपमपनर छततनसगढ़ 493114 कस कदनपसककत 27.09.13 चपलपन ससखयप 7244 व एन 0 टन0 पन0 सन0 कभलपई सस मपल लरकडसग कदनपसककत 27.09.13 व अमबनजप सनमसणट सलकमटसड खपन बड़डदप आधपर आटप पपस बपर करट 0600293198 छततनसगढ़ कस गसट पपस आई जन पन स. सस0 0600293 198 कदनपसककत 27.09.2013 कर व समबसनधत सपकनगण उपररक महसनद कतवपरन मर0 नस0 9997115338 कस बतडर सपकन तलब ककयप जपनप आवषयक एवस नयपय ससगत हह कययकक तरपकसरत घटनप कतसर समय सरपन पर पपरर अकभयनक नहह रहप हह तरप करई घटनप अपरपध नहह ककयप हह कस पकनय हसतन जर बयपन बचपव पक मम दडरपन कवचपरण आयप हह तरप उक कप सतयपपन उपररक सससरपन सस कटडतन हहयस समबसनधत सपकनयय व एन ममल पपत कर तलब ककयप जपवस तपकक नयपय हर। कदनपसक- 19.04.2024"

12. This application (paper no. 123-kha), filed by accused- applicant came to be rejected by Court below by means of the impugned order dated 22.4.2024

13. Perusal of the order impugned dated 22.4.2024 passed by Court below i.e. Additional Sessions judge, Court No. 1 Chandauli will go to show that aforementioned application was rejected on the grounds that accused Ramashish Yadav had already filed applications i.e. paper no. 109 kha and 111-kha, which were allowed in favour of accused Ramashish Yadav and Saroj Yadav was summoned by Court as a defence witness. Accordingly their depositions were recorded before Court below as D.W.1 and D.W.2. Subsequent to above the defence evidence was closed and the trial was fixed for hearing. Earlier vide order dated 11.8.2023, the right of the other accused to produce defence evidence had already been closed. As such, by means of the application, (paper no. 123 kha) the same relief which was earlier prayed by means of applications (paper no.109 kha) and paper no. 11 kha has been prayed. As such, the application (paper no. 123 kha) cannot be entertained.

14. Thus feeling aggrieved by above order dated, 22.4.2024 passed by Court below applicant has now approached this Court by means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C.

15. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. submits that in view of the facts on record, it is evident that applicant who is one of the charge sheeted accused and facing trial before Court below is blowing hot and cold at the same time. Since earlier an application (paper no. 109 kha) was filed by applicant to summon certain persons as witness, no reason can be gathered for not mentioning the name of the proposed witness i.e. Mahendra Tiwari in aforementioned application. The trial of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and particularly when the trial is under sections 302 and 120 B IPC. A lackadacical approach either on behalf of the prosecution or defence cannot be sustained. Since applicant is himself responsible for his casual approach therefore, no illegality can be attached to the order impugned. The trial is at the stage of hearing and therefore, the application (paper No. 123- Kha) was prima facie engineered only to delay the conclusion of trial. In view of above, no illegality has been committed by Court below in rejecting the aforementioned application (paper no. 123- Kha). It is thus urged by the learned A.G.A. that no interference is warranted by this Court in present application.

16. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant contends that the Court below has recorded a perverse finding in the order impugned that the applications 109-Kha and 111-Kha were decided by Court below by passing a detailed order and applicant-Ramashish Yadav and Co-driver Saroj Yadav were summoned as defence witness. However, the correct fact is that the application (paper No. 11-Kha) filed by applicant was rejected by Court below. Furthermore, the trial before Court below is that of accused-applicant. As such, the trial should be a free and fair trial. Principles of natural justice demand that justice should not only be done but also seen to be done. He, therefore, contends that Court below ought to have allowed the application (paper no. 123-Kha) filed by accused, as it was the proposed defence of accused- applicant. Be rejecting the application (paper no. 123 kha) Court below has crystalised the right of accused applicant to lead defence evidence in proof of his innocence. As such, present application is liable to be allowed.

17. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the preliminary objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application are clearly borne out from the record and furthermore the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record. In view of above, no good ground exists to entertain the present application.

18. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 17.2.2025 Arshad ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Neelesh Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel representing first informant/opposite party-2.

2. Perused the record.

3. Applicant- Ramashish Yadav, who is a charge sheeted accused, has approached this Court by means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and quash the Impugned Order dated 22.04.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge, Chandauli on application no. 123 Kha filed by the applicant in Session Trial No. 34 of 2014 (State versus Manish Kumar Yadav @ Upendra and Others), pending before the Learned Additional Session Judge, Court No. 1, Chandauli, Under Section 302, 120B of IPC, arising out of Case Crime No. 122 of 2013, Police Station- Balua, District- Chandauli. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the entire criminal proceeding of Session Trial No. 34 of 2014 (State versus Manish Kumar Yadav @ Upendra and Others), pending before the Learned Additional Session Judge, Court No. 1, Chandauli, Under Section 302, 120B of IPC, arising out of Case Crime No. 122 of 2013, Police Station- Balua, District- Chandauli, during pendency of the present Criminal Misc. Application before this Hon'ble Court otherwise the Applicants will suffer irreparable loss and Injury. And/or pass such other and further order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."

4. Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 27.9.2013, a prompt F.I.R. dated 27.9.2013 was lodged by first informant/opposite party-2 and was registered as case Crime No. 122 of 2013, under section 302 IPC, Police Station- Valua, District- Chandauli. In the aforesaid F.I.R. three persons who were riding on the motorcycle were arraigned as accused.

5. After aforementioned F.I.R. was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. On the basis of material collected by Investigating Officer during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of three persons is established in the crime in question. He accordingly submitted charge sheet/police report dated 26.12.2013 in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. whereby and whereunder Manish Kumar Yadav, Ramashish Yadav (applicant herein) and Sarita Yadav were charge sheeted under sections 302, 120 B IPC.

6. After submission of aforesaid charge sheet/police report, cogniznace was taken upon same by Jurisdictional Magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction under section 190 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. As such, the charge sheeted accused were summoned.

7. However, as offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, accordingly, concerned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. As a result, Sessions Trial No. 34 of 2014 (State Vs. Manish Kumar), under Sections 302, 120 B IPC, Police Station- Valua, District- Chandauli came to be registered. Concerned Sessions Judge, framed charges against the charge sheeted accused, who denied the same and pleaded innocence. As a result, the trial procedure commenced.

8. During the pendency of trial, an application dated 15.08.2023 (paper no. 109- kha) was filed by accused-applicant Ramashish Yadadav before court below wherein various persons as mentioned in the prayer clause of aforesaid application were sought to be summoned by Court below in exercise of jurisdiction under section 311 Cr.P.C. Since the prayer made in aforesaid application is relevant for the controversy in hand, therefore, for ready reference, the same is extracted herein under: "पपररनप अतत मपनननय नयपयपलय सस अननररध हह कक उक मपमलस कस यरपरर सतयपपन हसतन सवपससतक कमनरल ससधपकनयप सदन कनभररप रपयपनर छतनसगढ 493114 पभपरन कर व एन०टन०पन०सन० कभलपई कस पभपरन मपल लरकडसग व अमबनजप ससमसणट सलकमटसड खपन बडडदप बपजपर भपटप पपरप छतनसगढ कस गसट पपस कमर/ सनपरवपईजर कर एसव पपरर कर सवयस व सहचपलक सररज यपदव पनत बचचसलपल यपदव कनवपसन जहननपर रपनप सहदपनर जनपद गपजनपनर व सनकनल यपदव पनत कवजसनदनपर यपदव कनवपसन भकढयप रपनप खपनपनर जनपद गपजनपनर व शयपमम यपदव पनत शनरपम यपदव कनवपसन नई करट रपनप खपनपनर जनपद गपजनपनर कर सपकन/सफपई कस सससरपन पबनधक/ सपकय तलब करनस व पररककत करपनस कक अननमकत पदपन ककयप जपवस । तपकक नयपय हर।"

9. Aforesaid application was allowed by Court below, vide order dated 30.9.2023 and one of the person mentioned by name i.e. Saroj Yadav in above mentioned application was summoned by Court below under section 311 Cr.P.C.

10. Another application (paper no.111 kha) was also filed by accused applicant whereby plea of alibi raised by applicant was sought to be substantiated by seeking summoning of gate pass employee/supervisor Sunil Yadav and Shyam Babu. However, this application was rejected by Court below by the same order dated 30.09.2023.

11. After the statements of the accused were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., the deposition of applicant-Ramashish Yadav and Saroj Yadav were recorded as D.W.1 and D.W.2., accused- applicant Ramashish Yadav filed an application dated 19.4.2024, praying therein that certain documents mentioned in the prayer clause of this application and one person namely, Mahendra Tiwari be summoned, as a witness in exercise of jurisdiction under section 311 Cr.P.C. For ready refernece the prayer clause of this application is reproduced herein under: " पपररनप अतत मपनननय नयपयपलय सस अननररध हह कक उकपककत सपकय पपत कस सतयपपन व सपकय ससकलन हसतन सवपससतक कमनरलस ससधपकनयप सदन कवमररप रपमपनर छततनसगढ़ 493114 कस कदनपसककत 27.09.13 चपलपन ससखयप 7244 व एन 0 टन0 पन0 सन0 कभलपई सस मपल लरकडसग कदनपसककत 27.09.13 व अमबनजप सनमसणट सलकमटसड खपन बड़डदप आधपर आटप पपस बपर करट 0600293198 छततनसगढ़ कस गसट पपस आई जन पन स. सस0 0600293 198 कदनपसककत 27.09.2013 कर व समबसनधत सपकनगण उपररक महसनद कतवपरन मर0 नस0 9997115338 कस बतडर सपकन तलब ककयप जपनप आवषयक एवस नयपय ससगत हह कययकक तरपकसरत घटनप कतसर समय सरपन पर पपरर अकभयनक नहह रहप हह तरप करई घटनप अपरपध नहह ककयप हह कस पकनय हसतन जर बयपन बचपव पक मम दडरपन कवचपरण आयप हह तरप उक कप सतयपपन उपररक सससरपन सस कटडतन हहयस समबसनधत सपकनयय व एन ममल पपत कर तलब ककयप जपवस तपकक नयपय हर। कदनपसक- 19.04.2024"

12. This application (paper no. 123-kha), filed by accused- applicant came to be rejected by Court below by means of the impugned order dated 22.4.2024

13. Perusal of the order impugned dated 22.4.2024 passed by Court below i.e. Additional Sessions judge, Court No. 1 Chandauli will go to show that aforementioned application was rejected on the grounds that accused Ramashish Yadav had already filed applications i.e. paper no. 109 kha and 111-kha, which were allowed in favour of accused Ramashish Yadav and Saroj Yadav was summoned by Court as a defence witness. Accordingly their depositions were recorded before Court below as D.W.1 and D.W.2. Subsequent to above the defence evidence was closed and the trial was fixed for hearing. Earlier vide order dated 11.8.2023, the right of the other accused to produce defence evidence had already been closed. As such, by means of the application, (paper no. 123 kha) the same relief which was earlier prayed by means of applications (paper no.109 kha) and paper no. 11 kha has been prayed. As such, the application (paper no. 123 kha) cannot be entertained.

14. Thus feeling aggrieved by above order dated, 22.4.2024 passed by Court below applicant has now approached this Court by means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C.

15. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. submits that in view of the facts on record, it is evident that applicant who is one of the charge sheeted accused and facing trial before Court below is blowing hot and cold at the same time. Since earlier an application (paper no. 109 kha) was filed by applicant to summon certain persons as witness, no reason can be gathered for not mentioning the name of the proposed witness i.e. Mahendra Tiwari in aforementioned application. The trial of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and particularly when the trial is under sections 302 and 120 B IPC. A lackadacical approach either on behalf of the prosecution or defence cannot be sustained. Since applicant is himself responsible for his casual approach therefore, no illegality can be attached to the order impugned. The trial is at the stage of hearing and therefore, the application (paper No. 123- Kha) was prima facie engineered only to delay the conclusion of trial. In view of above, no illegality has been committed by Court below in rejecting the aforementioned application (paper no. 123- Kha). It is thus urged by the learned A.G.A. that no interference is warranted by this Court in present application.

16. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant contends that the Court below has recorded a perverse finding in the order impugned that the applications 109-Kha and 111-Kha were decided by Court below by passing a detailed order and applicant-Ramashish Yadav and Co-driver Saroj Yadav were summoned as defence witness. However, the correct fact is that the application (paper No. 11-Kha) filed by applicant was rejected by Court below. Furthermore, the trial before Court below is that of accused-applicant. As such, the trial should be a free and fair trial. Principles of natural justice demand that justice should not only be done but also seen to be done. He, therefore, contends that Court below ought to have allowed the application (paper no. 123-Kha) filed by accused, as it was the proposed defence of accused- applicant. Be rejecting the application (paper no. 123 kha) Court below has crystalised the right of accused applicant to lead defence evidence in proof of his innocence. As such, present application is liable to be allowed.

17. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the preliminary objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application are clearly borne out from the record and furthermore the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record. In view of above, no good ground exists to entertain the present application.

18. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 17.2.2025 Arshad ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad