# Anand Prakash Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 45858 of 2019 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2020-01-31 - **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 45858 of 2019 - **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anand-prakash-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-46211 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Criminal law-Code of Criminal Proceduresection 311-Application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. rejected-prayed for questioning PW-1 over photographs which could not be filed on record by previous counsel for unknown reason-photographs depicted that PW-1 was present-photographs never placed on record till date of the Application-no question arises for any cross-examination over it-Application dismissed. (E-9) Cases cited: ## Text 3-5 All. Anand Prakash Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 1749 an opportunity is granted to the applicant to cross-examine PW-2-prosecutrix. In view of it, the learned Judge is directed to recall PW-2, prosecutrix by fixing a date within three weeks and ensure her presence through concerned police station. It is made clear that on appearance of PW-2, prosecutrix, the defence shall positively cross-examine her and no further opportunity shall be given, unless the trial court under some exigency deems it fit to adjourn the case for her cross-examination. 12. In view of aforesaid, the impugned order dated 04.10.2019 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed and the application is accordingly allowed. 13. However, considering the long pendency of trial, the trial Court is hereby directed to expedite the aforesaid trial and conclude the same in accordance with law, considering the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this Order, if there is no legal impediment. 14. Office is directed to communicate the order to the court concerned forthwith. ---------- (2020)03-05ILR A1749 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.01.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 45858 of 2019 Anand Prakash Singh ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Sri Sunil Dubey Counsel for the Opposite Parties: A.G.A. Criminal law-Code of Criminal Proceduresection 311-Application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. rejected-prayed for questioning PW-1 over photographs which could not be filed on record by previous counsel for unknown reason-photographs depicted that PW-1 was present-photographs never placed on record till date of the Application-no question arises for any cross-examination over it-Application dismissed. (E-9) Cases cited: 1. St. of A.P. v. Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT 2010 (6) SC 588: (2010) 6 SCALE 767: 2010 Cr. LJ 3844 2. Hamida v. Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474 3. Monica Kumar v. St. of U.P., (2008) 8 SCC 781 4. Popular Muthiah v. State, Represented by Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296, 5. Dhanlakshmi v. R.Prasana Kumar, (1990) Cr LJ 320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC 494 6. St. of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, (1989) Cr LJ 1005: AIR 1989 SC 1 (Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam, J.) 1. This Application, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Hereinafter in short referred as 'Cr.P.C.'), has been filed by Anand Prakash Singh, applicant, with a prayer for setting aside impugned, dated 15.2.2019, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no.7, Varanasi, in Case No.1571 of 2013, State vs. Anand Prakash Singh, of Police Station-Adampura, District Varanasi, pending in the court of Additional Chief 1750 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Judicial Magistrate, court no.7, Varanasi, whereby, Application, filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., by the applicant, with a prayer for re-examining PW-1, has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for applicant argued that an application, under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., was moved before the Trial court, with a prayer for giving an opportunity to learned counsel for defence for questioning PW-1 over photographs, which could not be filed on record by the erstwhile counsel, under his wrong advise, and after engagement of present counsel, it was thought that above witness be crossexamined over those photographs. Witness, Varsha Singh, is there in those photographs and this Application was rejected by Trial court, which was an abuse of process of law. Hence, this Application, with above prayer, invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 3. Learned AGA, representing State of U.P., has vehemently opposed this Application. 4. From very perusal of the Application, moved, under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., before Trial court, it is apparent that on the date, i.e., 5.2.2018, some photographs were said to have been filed through list before the court, concerned, and prosecution witness no.1 could not be cross-examined over those photographs because of non-filing of the same before Trial court by the erstwhile counsel owning to his unknown reasons, whereas, those photographs were of this depiction that witness, PW-1, was present therein and it will belie entire case of prosecution. Hence, in the interest of justice, witness be summoned. 5. It was objected by other side with this contention that those photographs were result of tricky photography and it was neither with any certificate, certifying same to be original one nor any negative of the same nor were placed on record prior to above date of filing of the application, rather, those tricky photographs were got fabricated, only with a view to linger the proceeding. 6. Learned Trial court, after hearing learned counsel for both sides, rejected the application, while passing impugned order. 7. Admittedly, it was never said that those photographs could not be placed on record, even after, best exercise, made by the applicant, i.e., those documents were not filed till above date of Application, hence, no question arises for any cross-examination over those photographs and once it were opposed to be a tricky photographs and manufactured by the applicant, with a view to lingering proceeding, then, very genesis and admissibility of above photographs were challenged and unless those photographs were admitted on record, after satisfying ingredients by proving by applicant, by evidence of the person, who prepared those photographs and these ingredients were not part of record, and as such they are not admitted and no question of taking those photographs on record arises. 8. Moreso, Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, provides, 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- 3-5 All. Anand Prakash Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 1751 examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case." 9. Thus, end of justice is a sine qua non for entertaining an application, under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. This Section is an enabling Section, empowering the court for summoning and re-examining a witness, who had already been examined or to be examined or to be summoned for examination, in the course of ends of justice, for reaching just judicial making by the court and in present case, learned Magistrate, by a detailed order, had written those ingredients and concluded that there was no ground for re-examining of PW-1, with regard to above photographs. 10. This Court, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction, conferred upon it by Section 482 of Cr.P.C, is not to embark upon factual matrix because it may prejudice fair trial. On the ground of law, too, the impugned order is well intact and has been passed in accordance with provisions of law and precedents on the subject and as such does not call for any interference by this Court, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. 11. Apex Court, in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gaurishetty Mahesh, JT 2010 (6) SC 588: (2010) 6 SCALE 767: 2010 Cr. LJ 3844, has propounded that "While exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable apprehension of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge/Court". In another subsequent judgment, in the case of Hamida v. Rashid, (2008) 1 SCC 474, Hon'ble Apex Court propounded that "Ends of justice would be better served if valuable time of the Court is spent in hearing those appeals rather than entertaining petitions under Section 482 at an interlocutory stage which after filed with some oblique motive in order to circumvent the prescribed procedure, or to delay the trial which enable to win over the witness or may disinterested in giving evidence, ultimately resulting in miscarriage of Justice". In again yet another judgment, in the case of Monica Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 781, the Apex Court has propounded "Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself." While interpreting this jurisdiction of High Court Apex Court, in the case of Popular Muthiah v. State, Represented by Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296, has propounded "High Court can exercise jurisdiction suo motu in the interest of justice. It can do so while exercising other jurisdictions such as appellate or revisional jurisdiction. No formal application for invoking inherent jurisdiction is necessary. Inherent jurisdiction can be exercised in respect of substantive as well as procedural matters. It can as well be exercised in respect of incidental or supplemental power irrespective of nature of proceedings". 12. Regarding prevention of abuse of process of Court, Apex Court, in the case of Dhanlakshmi v. R.Prasana Kumar, (1990) Cr LJ 320 (DB): AIR 1990 SC 494, has propounded "To prevent abuse of the process of the Court, High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under section 482, could quash the proceedings, but, there would be justification for 1752 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES interference only when the complaint did not disclose any offence or was frivolous vexatious or oppressive" as well as in the case of State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, (1989) Cr LJ 1005: AIR 1989 SC 1, Apex Court propounded "In exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 High Court would not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not". 13. Meaning thereby, exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is within the limits, propounded as above. 14. In view of what has been discussed, hereinabove, this Application, being devoid of merits, merits dismissal and it stands dismissed as such. ---------- (2020)03-05ILR A1752 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.01.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. Application U/S 482 No. 47282 of 2019 Ranjit ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Sri Pramod Kumar Saxena Counsel for the Opposite Parties: A.G.A. Criminal Law-Complainant alleges that Applicant owes some money-for repayment Applicant gave a chequeto Complainant-cheque was returned by bank for insufficient balance-no evidence was led by Applicant nor its prima facie that any fraud exist -bank has also not made any remarkon the return memo-no illegality in the orders passed by Court below-Application dismissed. (E-9) Cases Cited: 1. Raj Kumar Khurana Vs. State of (NCT of Delhi) & anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 72 (distinguished) 2. S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Appellants Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. & ors.r Respondents, reported in AIR 1994 SC 853; 3. Kali Ram Vs. St. of H.P., reported in (1973) 2 SCC 808 4. Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company Vs. Amin Chand Pyarelal 5. M.S. Narayana Menon Alias Mani Vs. St. of Kerala & anr., reported in (2006) 6 SCC 39 6. Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde, reported in (2008) 4 SCC 54 7. Kumar Exports Vs. Sharma Carpets, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 513 8. Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441 9. Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa reported in (2019) 5 SCC 418 (Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) 1. Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan and Mr. Prashant Kumar, learned A.G.As. for the State. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. agree that the present application may be disposed of at this stage without calling for further affidavits in view of the order proposed to be passed today.