# Ajit Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 1946 of 2020
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-27
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 1946 of 2020
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ajit-pratap-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46357
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

(A) Criminal law- Dowry Prohibition
Act - Section 311 - Section 3/4. -
Cr.P.C Code of criminal procedure,
1973 - Sections 482 - Inherent
jurisdiction - Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Sections 498-A, 304-B, 504 I.P.C. -
Power to summon material witness,
or examine person present - principles
governing Section 311 Cr.P.C. and end
of justice is a sine qua non for
exercise of jurisdiction under this
section - no frustration of end of
justice.(Para - 9)
3-5 All. Ajit Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1537
Applicant - invoked the inherent jurisdiction of
Court with prayer to quash the order passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge - under
Sections 498-A, 304-B, 504 I.P.C. and Section
3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act - application moved
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for further examining
applicant, his wife and his son in above trial by
application 28-A - rejected. (Para-1)

HELD:- The court has been empowered under
Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon witnesses, in
cases where end of justice require so. It is
enabling section, which enables court for
examining witnesses either examined or to be
examined for the end of justice, but this
situation should be there. (Para - 8)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed.
(E-7)

List Of Cases Cited:-

## Text

1536 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mentioned by Investigating Officer in its
application
regarding
what
kind
of
evidence is there, which required further
investigation.
Hence,
application
was
vague in nature, that is why it was rejected.
Meaning thereby, merit of application was
not discussed in above order, but on the
basis of devoid of fact to be written in it
and being it a vague application, it was
rejected. Subsequently, application by I.O.
was moved with above fact, as was there,
requiring further investigation and the order
of rejection by Court of Magistrate was
mentioned in this application that once an
application was moved and it was rejected
because of application being vague and
with no fact and on this application, the fact
which came in the light, were written. Then
after, the same Magistrate permitted for
further investigation. Hence, the very
argument of learned counsel for the
applicants
that
first
order
was
not
mentioned in this application, which was
subsequently moved, was incorrect and
against the fact. It was written in that
application,
subsequently
moved,
that
previous application, moved by I.O., was
not with that facts, which were required in
view of law of Apex Court given in case of
Amrut bhai Shambhubhai Patel vs.
Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel & others
(supra). Hence, the order for formal
investigation could not be obtained.

11.

In
present
case,
a
First
Information Report was lodged against
accused
persons,
with
accusation
of
offences punishable under Sections 376-D,
307 I.P.C. and it was investigated and
mentioned that those offences were not
made out i.e. it is nothing new added by
I.O. Rather, it was since the beginning, and
the contention of informant-victim was
intact. Subsequent investigation mentioned
the evidence collected after submission of
previous charge-sheet and on the basis of
that evidence, subsequent charge-sheet was
filed, over which cognizance was taken.
Hence, this Court, in exercise of inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is
not to embark upon factual matrix because
it may prejudice trial and the fact is to be
seen by trial court. The order of Magistrate
for further investigation was a formal
permission, given in accordance with law.
Hence, this application merits its dismissal.

12. Dismissed, as such.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A1536
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.01.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 1946 of 2020

Ajit Pratap Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Amit Daga, Sri Satendra Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Anurag Dubey

(A) Criminal law- Dowry Prohibition
Act - Section 311 - Section 3/4. -
Cr.P.C Code of criminal procedure,
1973 - Sections 482 - Inherent
jurisdiction - Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Sections 498-A, 304-B, 504 I.P.C. -
Power to summon material witness,
or examine person present - principles
governing Section 311 Cr.P.C. and end
of justice is a sine qua non for
exercise of jurisdiction under this
section - no frustration of end of
justice.(Para - 9)
3-5 All. Ajit Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1537
Applicant - invoked the inherent jurisdiction of
Court with prayer to quash the order passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge - under
Sections 498-A, 304-B, 504 I.P.C. and Section
3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act - application moved
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for further examining
applicant, his wife and his son in above trial by
application 28-A - rejected. (Para-1)

HELD:- The court has been empowered under
Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon witnesses, in
cases where end of justice require so. It is
enabling section, which enables court for
examining witnesses either examined or to be
examined for the end of justice, but this
situation should be there. (Para - 8)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed.
(E-7)

List Of Cases Cited:-

1. Zahira Habibullah Sheikh Vs. St. of Guj., 2004
(49) ACC 238,

2. Vijay Kumar Vs. St. of U.P., 2011 (74) ACC
879,

3. Natasha Singh Vs. C.B.I., 2013 (82) ACC 387,

4. Sheela Devi Vs. St. of U.P., Criminal Revision
No. 1344 of 2018

5. Allahabad and Dinesh Kumar Mishra Vs. St. of
U.P., 2019 (108) ACC 40

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam, J.)

1. The applicant, by means of this
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has
invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this
Court with prayer to quash the order dated
13.12.2019, passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Mainpuri, in
Session Trial No. 3 of 2018, State of U.P.
Vs. Vipul Pratap Singh and others, under
Sections 498-A, 304-B, 504 I.P.C. and
Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police
Station Bhogaon, District Mainpuri (arising
out of Case Crime No. 436 of 2017), at
Police Station Bhogaon, District Mainpuri,
wherein application moved under Section
311 Cr.P.C. for further examining applicant
PW-1, his wife Shashi Prabha PW-3 and
his son Rudra Pratap Singh PW-4 in above
trial by application 28-A and the same was
rejected.

2.

Heard
learned
counsel
for
applicant, learned counsel for opposite
party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for State and
perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for applicant
argued that applicant is complainant /
informant of above case crime number,
wherein death of his daughter under
suspicious circumstances, within seven
years of marriage, had occurred and it was
by way of suicide regarding demand of
dowry and cruelty by her husband and their
close relatives, wherein bail to father-inlaw, mother-in-law and brother-in-law were
granted by this Court and bail to husband is
still pending for disposal. The opposite
party no. 3 is Police Inspector posted at
Mathura, who is father-in-law of deceased,
was exercising pressure over informant and
his family members for not giving evidence
against accused persons, otherwise to face
dire consequences, but applicant was not
afraid of it and this case crime number was
got registered, wherein trial was proceeded,
but applicant managed to get a forged case
lodged for offence punishable under
Section 376-D I.P.C. at Police Station Raya
Mathura, wherein he managed to get coaccused
Devendra
Singh
arrested,
thereafter, a threat for giving evidence in
favour of accused persons were extended
and ultimately applicant succumbed to
above threat. He, his wife and his son gave
evidence before trial court and they have
not supported case of prosecution. Even
then, blackmailing was being made by
1538 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accused persons. Then application was
moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for reexamining those three witnesses, who were
examined by trial court, because their
evidence were under threat and were not
independent evidence and this application
28A was rejected by trial court under abuse
of process of law. Hence, this application
with above prayer.

4. Learned counsel for opposite party
no. 2 has vehemently opposed this
application with contention that in this very
case crime number death by suicide had
occurred at the place of informant i.e. not at
the home of accused persons, even then,
case was got lodged against accused
persons,
wherein
charge
sheet
was
submitted and trial was proceeded. There is
a direction of Hon'ble Court for expeditious
disposal of above trial that too within a
stipulated period. Thereafter, applicant was
summoned, but he did not appear for trial,
whereupon warrant were issued against him
and, thereafter, he appeared and was
examined by court. After his examination,
other witnesses were examined that too
with interval, but at no point of time any
allegation regarding threat was there and in
those evidences, prosecution witnesses
have not supported case of prosecution.
Subsequently, with a view to malign and
blackmail accused persons, who were
innocent, an application under Section 311
Cr.P.C., was moved for summoning one
witness Gyan Singh, who has not been
examined under Section 311 Cr.P.C. This
was objected by accused persons and it was
rejected by trial court. Above order has not
been placed on record. After above order,
this application under section 311 Cr.P.C.
with above prayer was moved and it was
rejected by impugned order, which is well
in accordance with law. This proceeding is
itself under abuse of process of law. Hence,
the same be rejected.

5.

Learned
A.G.A.
has
also
vehemently opposed the application.

6. Having heard learned counsel for
both sides and gone through material
placed on record, it is apparent that
applicant, his wife and his son were
examined in examination-in-chief. Then,
they were declared hostile upon the request
of prosecution and they were crossexamined by prosecution itself. Again they
were examined in cross-examination by
defence counsel and all these witnesses
have not supported case of prosecution. At
no point of time it was raised before trial
court that these testimonies were under
coercion or under threat. Subsequently,
another application was moved under
Section 311 Cr.P.C.. Therein, also it was
not mentioned. Ultimately, this application
28-A was moved on 19.11.2019 i.e. after a
considerable lapse of time in between, with
above prayer.

7. Section 311 Cr.P.C. reads as
under:-

311. Power to summon material
witness, or examine person present. Any
Court may, at any stage of any inquiry,
trial or other proceeding under this Code,
summon any person as a witness, or
examine any person in attendance, though
not summoned as a witness, or. recall and
re- examine any person already examined;
and the Court shall summon and examine
or recall and re- examine any such person
if his evidence appears to it to be essential
to the just decision of the case.

8. Meaning thereby, it is settled law
that if the conditions under this Section are
3-5 All. Ahil Sharda & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1539
satisfied, the court can call a witness not
only on the motion of either side or suo
motu for examination of a witness, who
had already been examined or present in
the
court
or
being
summoned
for
examination for the end of justice and
proper judicial decision making. The court
has been empowered by this Section to
summon witnesses, in cases where end of
justice require so. It is enabling section,
which
enables
court
for
examining
witnesses either examined or to be
examined for the end of justice, but this
situation should be there.

9. In the present case, if situation is to
be analysed, it is apparent that with a view
to have favour in a case of rape being said
to be lodged against applicant, he became
hostile to prosecution case. Not only he, his
wife and his son became hostile. They have
not supported case of prosecution with a
view to have favour in a case, which was
said to be manipulated and lodged upon
initiation of Police Inspector opposite party
no. 3 against applicant. Though, above case
crime number and F.I.R. is not with
specific title or parentage or residence. It is
merely with a name of Ajit Pratap Singh.
How it is related with this case is not
apparent therein. The applicant has yet not
been arrested by Investigating Officer in
above case, as has been argued by learned
counsel for applicant, whereas in this case
he had appeared before trial court, had
given evidence and the evidence is with
interval, wherein evidence was recorded by
trial court and at no point of time this
complaint was ever lodged neither any
complaint of such threat was there, whereas
it was said that since the beginning threat
was being extended. The law laid down in
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh Vs. State of
Gujarat; 2004 (49) ACC 238, Vijay
Kumar Vs. State of U.P.; 2011 (74) ACC
879, Natasha Singh Vs. C.B.I.; 2013 (82)
ACC 387, Sheela Devi Vs. State of U.P.;
Criminal Revision No. 1344 of 2018
Allahabad and Dinesh Kumar Mishra
Vs. State of U.P.; 2019 (108) ACC 40,
relies that principles governing Section 311
Cr.P.C. and end of justice is a sine qua non
for exercise of jurisdiction under this
section and in present case there is no
frustration of end of justice at all.
Accordingly, this application merits its
dismissal. The application is dismissed as
such.

10. Interim order stands vacated. The
trial court is directed to make compliance
of order given in this case regarding
disposal, as mentioned in it.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A1539
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.03.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482/378/407 Cr.P.C. No. 2005
of 2019

Ahil Sharda & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Baljeet Singh,Dr. Lalta Prasad Misra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate, Kunwar Sushant Prakash,
Nadeem Murtaza, Nagendra Mohan, Nilesh
Anand, Shubham Tripathi, Sushil Kumar
Singh

(A) Criminal Law-Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 -
Inherent jurisdiction - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Section 406, 420, 467,