Others v. State Of U.P. And Another. The said application was disposed of finally by this

Another. The said application was disposed of finally by this Court vide order dated 31.05.2019. For ready reference, above order dated 31.05.2019 is extracted hereinbelow: "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated

17.05.2019 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Mathura in S..T. No.948 of 2014 (State Vs. Sandeep and Others), in Case Crime No.855 of 2013, under Sections-147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali, District-Mathura.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the present case, the order passed by the learned court below is unduly harsh and hasty, inasmuch as, it is undisputed that the examination-in-chief of PW-3 Ashish Chaturvedi, was recorded on 01.05.2019 and his cross-examination was to take place on that date. Owing to the circumstances beyond the control of the present applicants, being the thirteenth day from the death of the mother of applicant no.4, that applicant could not appear and had filed an application for exemption. As to the other applicants, though, it is admitted, they could have been present, however, on account of certain mis-understanding and mis- communication, they also did not appear.

4. While the exemption application is claimed to have been filed by applicant no.4 on which no order came to be passed, however, the learned court below has hurriedly closed the opportunity of cross-examination of all applicants.

5. Insofar as PW-2 is concerned, the facts are different, inasmuch as the testimony of the said witness been recorded earlier and he had been cross examined by some of the accused persons.

6. In the application dated 09.05.2015 filed by applicant no.2, it has only been mentioned that certain questions have remained to be put to that witness with respect to TV interview given by him.

7. Thus, it has been submitted that the applicants being faced with a heavy charge of offence under Section 302, the learned court below has needlessly closed the opportunity of cross-examination in a hurried manner.

8. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that the applicants are themselves to blame as they did not appear before the learned court below and did not file and press proper application to seek any adjournment. The trial itself is of the year 2014 and the learned court below has not acted in a hurried manner but has passed the order only in the interest of justice so that the trial may be concluded expeditiously.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, with respect to the cross examination sought by PW-3 Ashish Chaturvedi, it is seen that his examination-in-chief was recorded on

01.05.2019 and on that date itself the opportunity of cross examination was closed to all the accused persons. Even if, it may be assumed that there was some error on part of some of the applicants, it does appear that the application for exemption was filed by one of them being applicant no.4. While such fact has been stated in the recall application filed by the said applicant no.4, there is no discussion with respect to the same in the impugned order dated 17.05.2019 or the order dated 01.05.2019 when the opportunity of cross examination had been closed. For that reason alone, the present application deserves to be allowed as once the cross examination is to be allowed to applicant no.4, there may remain no real reason or cause to deny that liberty to the other applicants as none of them has yet cross examined PW-3.

10. Insofar as PW-2 is concerned, though, exact question had not been specified in the application seeking recall of that witness, however, the subject matter of cross examination has been disclosed being the answers given by that witness during a specified TV interview that is claimed to be relevant to the incident giving rise to the trial of the applicants. Therefore in the interest of justice a limited opportunity to cross examine that witness may also have been allowed.

11. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Further, directions are issued to the effect that the applicants may be offered cross examination of PW-2 Ashok Kumar, on one date alone. All applicants undertake to complete their cross examination on that date itself without seeking, in any way, to repeat any cross examination question and without otherwise seeking to delay that cross examination. The applicants be also allowed an opportunity to cross examine PW-3 Ashish Chaturvedi on the date and convenience of the learned court below. Also the applicants undertake not to take any undue or long adjournment."

5. In spite of above order dated 31.05.2019, the counsel for the applicant absented himself on the date the aforementioned witnesses appeared before the Court below for their cross- examination. This Court in the above order dated 31.05.2019 had further observed that applicants undertake not to take any undue or long adjournment. Irrespective of the aforesaid observation, no attempt was made on behalf of the applicant to ensure the cross- examination of P.W.3 and P.W.6. Resultantly, vide orders dated

17.08.2019 and 04.09.2019, the Court below again closed the opportunity of the accused-applicant to cross-examine P.W.3 and P.W.6.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the above orders dated 17.08.2019 and

04.09.2019, applicant approached this Court by means of an Application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 46302 of 2019, Kuldeep Chaturvedi And Another Vs State Of U.P. And Another. The aforementioned application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 13.12.2019. The same reads as under: "1. Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

2. Applicants have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") with a prayer to quash the orders dated 17.08.2019 and 04.09.2019 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Mathura in S.T. No. 948 of 2014, State vs. Sandeep and others, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura and direct the court below to consider the application allowing the cross-examination of PW-3 in the interest of justice.

3. It is contended that trial court wrongly closed the cross-examination of PW-3 Ashish Chaturvedi which caused prejudice and interest of justice to applicant. It is further contended that due to non-availability of Advocate, PW-3 could not be cross examined from the side of accused applicants and opportunity of his cross-examination has been closed by the trial court.

4. Learned AGA opposed the prayer and pointed out that applicants are adopting a lingering tactic and they are not interested to get the case decided while the disposal of case is expedited by this Court in application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 4624 of 2018 and court below is proceeding with the case under the direction of Court. Learned AGA further pointed out that application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 21849 of 2019 was filed by the accused-appellants in which Court allowed the applicants to cross-examine PW-3 Ashish Chaturvedi on their filing an undertaking not to take any undue or long adjournment but despite direction of the Court, applicants further failed to cross-examine the witness.

5. Evidently, PW-3 was present in trial court for cross-examination on

17.8.2019 but accused-applicants made an adjournment application and did not make cross-examination. Resultantly, application was dismissed and opportunity of cross-examination was closed by the Court. On the next date i.e. 4.9.2019, accused applicants made an application no. B-105 and B-106 to recall the order dated 17.8.2019 for cross-examination to PW-3 Ashish Chaturvedi which was dismissed by impugned order. Since accused- applicants were not making cross examination with witness, therefore, trial court had closed an opportunity for cross-examination of witness.

6. Earlier, applicants had approached to this Court for giving opportunity of cross-examination and this Court allowed the Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 21849 of 2019. Order reads as under :- Accordingly, the application is allowed. Further, directions are issued to the effect that the applicants may be offered cross examination of PW-2 Ashok Kumar, on one date alone. All applicants undertake to complete their cross examination on that date itself without seeking, in any way, to repeat any cross examination question and without otherwise seeking to delay that cross examination. The applicants be also allowed an opportunity to cross examine PW-3 Ashish Chaturvedi on the date and convenience of the learned court below. Also the applicants undertake not to take any undue or long adjournment.

7. Again in compliance of order passed by this Court in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 21849 of 2019, witness was present but accused- applicants did not make any cross-examination with PW-3 and resultantly trial court again closed the cross-examination.

8. It is not a good case invoking jurisdiction of this Court.

9. In view thereof, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed. "

7. Subsequently, applicant filed an application dated 16.10.2024 before Court below with the prayer that an opportunity be granted to cross-examine P.W.3 and P.W.6. It is this application dated

16.10.2024 which has been rejected by Court below by means of the order impugned dated 05.11.2024.

8. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. raised a preliminary objection by contending that the right of the accused-applicant to cross-examine P.W.3 and P.W.6 was closed by the Court below vide orders dated 17.08.2019 and 04.09.2019. Against aforesaid orders, Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 46302 of 2019, Kuldeep Chaturvedi And Another Vs State Of U.P. And Another was filed by applicant which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 13.12.2019. The orders dated 17.08.2019,

04.09.2019 passed by Court below and the order dated 13.12.2019 passed by this Court have become final for want of further challenge.

9. In view of above, the application dated 16.10.2024 filed by accused-applicant before Court below for grant of an opportunity to cross-examine P.W.3 and P.W.6 was not maintainable, as such, no illegality has been committed by Court below in passing the order impugned.

10. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

11. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, learned counsel for first informant-opposite party No.2 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the 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.

12. As a result, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

13. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 24.3.2025 Karan KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Another. The said application was disposed of finally by this Court vide order dated 31.05.2019. For ready reference, above order dated 31.05.2019 is extracted hereinbelow: "1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated

17.05.2019 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Mathura in S..T. No.948 of 2014 (State Vs. Sandeep and Others), in Case Crime No.855 of 2013, under Sections-147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali, District-Mathura.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the present case, the order passed by the learned court below is unduly harsh and hasty, inasmuch as, it is undisputed that the examination-in-chief of PW-3 Ashish Chaturvedi, was recorded on 01.05.2019 and his cross-examination was to take place on that date. Owing to the circumstances beyond the control of the present applicants, being the thirteenth day from the death of the mother of applicant no.4, that applicant could not appear and had filed an application for exemption. As to the other applicants, though, it is admitted, they could have been present, however, on account of certain mis-understanding and mis- communication, they also did not appear.

4. While the exemption application is claimed to have been filed by applicant no.4 on which no order came to be passed, however, the learned court below has hurriedly closed the opportunity of cross-examination of all applicants.

5. Insofar as PW-2 is concerned, the facts are different, inasmuch as the testimony of the said witness been recorded earlier and he had been cross examined by some of the accused persons.

6. In the application dated 09.05.2015 filed by applicant no.2, it has only been mentioned that certain questions have remained to be put to that witness with respect to TV interview given by him.

7. Thus, it has been submitted that the applicants being faced with a heavy charge of offence under Section 302, the learned court below has needlessly closed the opportunity of cross-examination in a hurried manner.

8. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that the applicants are themselves to blame as they did not appear before the learned court below and did not file and press proper application to seek any adjournment. The trial itself is of the year 2014 and the learned court below has not acted in a hurried manner but has passed the order only in the interest of justice so that the trial may be concluded expeditiously.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, with respect to the cross examination sought by PW-3 Ashish Chaturvedi, it is seen that his examination-in-chief was recorded on

01.05.2019 and on that date itself the opportunity of cross examination was closed to all the accused persons. Even if, it may be assumed that there was some error on part of some of the applicants, it does appear that the application for exemption was filed by one of them being applicant no.4. While such fact has been stated in the recall application filed by the said applicant no.4, there is no discussion with respect to the same in the impugned order dated 17.05.2019 or the order dated 01.05.2019 when the opportunity of cross examination had been closed. For that reason alone, the present application deserves to be allowed as once the cross examination is to be allowed to applicant no.4, there may remain no real reason or cause to deny that liberty to the other applicants as none of them has yet cross examined PW-3.

10. Insofar as PW-2 is concerned, though, exact question had not been specified in the application seeking recall of that witness, however, the subject matter of cross examination has been disclosed being the answers given by that witness during a specified TV interview that is claimed to be relevant to the incident giving rise to the trial of the applicants. Therefore in the interest of justice a limited opportunity to cross examine that witness may also have been allowed.

11. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Further, directions are issued to the effect that the applicants may be offered cross examination of PW-2 Ashok Kumar, on one date alone. All applicants undertake to complete their cross examination on that date itself without seeking, in any way, to repeat any cross examination question and without otherwise seeking to delay that cross examination. The applicants be also allowed an opportunity to cross examine PW-3 Ashish Chaturvedi on the date and convenience of the learned court below. Also the applicants undertake not to take any undue or long adjournment."

5. In spite of above order dated 31.05.2019, the counsel for the applicant absented himself on the date the aforementioned witnesses appeared before the Court below for their cross- examination. This Court in the above order dated 31.05.2019 had further observed that applicants undertake not to take any undue or long adjournment. Irrespective of the aforesaid observation, no attempt was made on behalf of the applicant to ensure the cross- examination of P.W.3 and P.W.6. Resultantly, vide orders dated

17.08.2019 and 04.09.2019, the Court below again closed the opportunity of the accused-applicant to cross-examine P.W.3 and P.W.6.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the above orders dated 17.08.2019 and

04.09.2019, applicant approached this Court by means of an Application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 46302 of 2019, Kuldeep Chaturvedi And Another Vs State Of U.P. And Another. The aforementioned application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 13.12.2019. The same reads as under: "1. Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

2. Applicants have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") with a prayer to quash the orders dated 17.08.2019 and 04.09.2019 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Mathura in S.T. No. 948 of 2014, State vs. Sandeep and others, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura and direct the court below to consider the application allowing the cross-examination of PW-3 in the interest of justice.

3. It is contended that trial court wrongly closed the cross-examination of PW-3 Ashish Chaturvedi which caused prejudice and interest of justice to applicant. It is further contended that due to non-availability of Advocate, PW-3 could not be cross examined from the side of accused applicants and opportunity of his cross-examination has been closed by the trial court.

4. Learned AGA opposed the prayer and pointed out that applicants are adopting a lingering tactic and they are not interested to get the case decided while the disposal of case is expedited by this Court in application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 4624 of 2018 and court below is proceeding with the case under the direction of Court. Learned AGA further pointed out that application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 21849 of 2019 was filed by the accused-appellants in which Court allowed the applicants to cross-examine PW-3 Ashish Chaturvedi on their filing an undertaking not to take any undue or long adjournment but despite direction of the Court, applicants further failed to cross-examine the witness.

5. Evidently, PW-3 was present in trial court for cross-examination on

17.8.2019 but accused-applicants made an adjournment application and did not make cross-examination. Resultantly, application was dismissed and opportunity of cross-examination was closed by the Court. On the next date i.e. 4.9.2019, accused applicants made an application no. B-105 and B-106 to recall the order dated 17.8.2019 for cross-examination to PW-3 Ashish Chaturvedi which was dismissed by impugned order. Since accused- applicants were not making cross examination with witness, therefore, trial court had closed an opportunity for cross-examination of witness.

6. Earlier, applicants had approached to this Court for giving opportunity of cross-examination and this Court allowed the Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 21849 of 2019. Order reads as under :- Accordingly, the application is allowed. Further, directions are issued to the effect that the applicants may be offered cross examination of PW-2 Ashok Kumar, on one date alone. All applicants undertake to complete their cross examination on that date itself without seeking, in any way, to repeat any cross examination question and without otherwise seeking to delay that cross examination. The applicants be also allowed an opportunity to cross examine PW-3 Ashish Chaturvedi on the date and convenience of the learned court below. Also the applicants undertake not to take any undue or long adjournment.

7. Again in compliance of order passed by this Court in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 21849 of 2019, witness was present but accused- applicants did not make any cross-examination with PW-3 and resultantly trial court again closed the cross-examination.

8. It is not a good case invoking jurisdiction of this Court.

9. In view thereof, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed. "

7. Subsequently, applicant filed an application dated 16.10.2024 before Court below with the prayer that an opportunity be granted to cross-examine P.W.3 and P.W.6. It is this application dated

16.10.2024 which has been rejected by Court below by means of the order impugned dated 05.11.2024.

8. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. raised a preliminary objection by contending that the right of the accused-applicant to cross-examine P.W.3 and P.W.6 was closed by the Court below vide orders dated 17.08.2019 and 04.09.2019. Against aforesaid orders, Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 46302 of 2019, Kuldeep Chaturvedi And Another Vs State Of U.P. And Another was filed by applicant which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 13.12.2019. The orders dated 17.08.2019,

04.09.2019 passed by Court below and the order dated 13.12.2019 passed by this Court have become final for want of further challenge.

9. In view of above, the application dated 16.10.2024 filed by accused-applicant before Court below for grant of an opportunity to cross-examine P.W.3 and P.W.6 was not maintainable, as such, no illegality has been committed by Court below in passing the order impugned.

10. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

11. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, learned counsel for first informant-opposite party No.2 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the 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.

12. As a result, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

13. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 24.3.2025 Karan KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad