# Km. Geeta v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2022) 10 ILRA 591
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-08-10
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 25851 of 2021
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/km-geeta-v-state-of-u-p-47762
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power, Section 311 - Power to summon
material witness, or examine person
present - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 344, 376D, 354, 323, 504, 506,
115 & 34 - fairness of trial has to be seen
not only from the point of view of the
victim, but also from the point of view of
the accused and the society - not possible
to lay down precise situations when such
power can be exercised - scope of power
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has to be
considered
from
case
to
case
-
victim/applicant cannot have the witness
recalled for re-examination as a matter of
right and extraordinary provision cannot
be used as an afterthought to fill the
gaps.(Para - 22,23)

(B) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
311
-
discretionary power vested under Section
311 Cr.P.C. - to be exercised judiciously
for strong and valid reasons and with
caution and circumspection to meet the
ends of justice - should ensure that
judgment should not be rendered on
inchoate, inconclusive and speculative
presentation of facts. (Para -16,20)

Applicant/victim filed an application under
Section 311 Cr.P.C. - to summon her for giving
further
evidence
with
respect
to
certain
photographs and documents - which were
necessary for proper adjudication of case -
application rejected by court below - ground -
statement of applicant/victim already recorded -
all
evidences

available
on
record
-
victim/applicant already examined and crossexamined - filed only for lingering on the trial of
the case.(Para -2,3, 9,21)
592 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
HELD:- Application filed by applicant under
Section 311 Cr.P.C., is only for lingering on the
trial of the case. Rejection of application under
Section 311 Cr.P.C. of applicant under the facts
and circumstances of the case are fully
sustainable. Trial Court committed no illegality
or infirmity. No abuse of process of Court. No
evidence on record to satisfy Court that trial
would
be
seriously
prejudiced
if
the
victim/applicant
is
not
recalled
for
reexamination or further examination. (Para -
21,24)

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

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

10 All. Km. Geeta Vs. State of U.P.
591
dispute,
therefore,
if
in
such
cases
settlement even if arrived at between the
accused persons and complainant-injured
persons, the same cannot constitute a valid
ground to quash the charge sheet or
proceeding pending against the accused
persons.

26. The case in hand is a State case in
which after investigation, complicity of the
applicants were found correct and charge sheet
against them has been submitted, therefore, it
has become a matter between the State and the
accused and it is the duty of the State to ensure
the law and order and to prosecute offender
and in such cases, informant or the victim has
no right in law to drop the case of noncompoundable offence of serious and heinous
nature which badly affects the society.

27. Therefore in my view the offences
alleged to have been committed by applicants
are crime against the society and it can not be
said that the present dispute is private in nature
and does not affect the society at large.
Therefore, proceedings of such cases should
not be quashed on the basis of settlement
arrived at between the parties.

28.

Therefore,
from
the
above
discussion, I find no merit in the argument
advanced
by
learned
counsel
for
the
applicants. Accordingly, the instant application
is devoid of merit and is, hereby dismissed.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 591
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 25851 of 2021
Km. Geeta ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Govt. Advocate, Sri Deepak Yadav

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power, Section 311 - Power to summon
material witness, or examine person
present - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 344, 376D, 354, 323, 504, 506,
115 & 34 - fairness of trial has to be seen
not only from the point of view of the
victim, but also from the point of view of
the accused and the society - not possible
to lay down precise situations when such
power can be exercised - scope of power
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has to be
considered
from
case
to
case
-
victim/applicant cannot have the witness
recalled for re-examination as a matter of
right and extraordinary provision cannot
be used as an afterthought to fill the
gaps.(Para - 22,23)

(B) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure,
1973
-
Section
311
-
discretionary power vested under Section
311 Cr.P.C. - to be exercised judiciously
for strong and valid reasons and with
caution and circumspection to meet the
ends of justice - should ensure that
judgment should not be rendered on
inchoate, inconclusive and speculative
presentation of facts. (Para -16,20)

Applicant/victim filed an application under
Section 311 Cr.P.C. - to summon her for giving
further
evidence
with
respect
to
certain
photographs and documents - which were
necessary for proper adjudication of case -
application rejected by court below - ground -
statement of applicant/victim already recorded -
all
evidences

available
on
record
-
victim/applicant already examined and crossexamined - filed only for lingering on the trial of
the case.(Para -2,3, 9,21)
592 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
HELD:- Application filed by applicant under
Section 311 Cr.P.C., is only for lingering on the
trial of the case. Rejection of application under
Section 311 Cr.P.C. of applicant under the facts
and circumstances of the case are fully
sustainable. Trial Court committed no illegality
or infirmity. No abuse of process of Court. No
evidence on record to satisfy Court that trial
would
be
seriously
prejudiced
if
the
victim/applicant
is
not
recalled
for
reexamination or further examination. (Para -
21,24)

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

List of Cases cited:-
1. Raja Ram Prasad Yadav Vs St. of Bihar &
anr., (2013)14 SCC 461

2. Mannan SK & ors. Vs St. of W.B. & anr. ,
AIR 2014 SC 2950

3. V.N. Patil Vs K. Niranjan Kumar & ors. ,
(2021) 3 SCC 661

4. Vijay Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & anr., 2011 (8)
SCC 136

5. Mannan Shaikh & ors. Vs St. of W.B. & anr.,
2014 (13) SCC 59

6. Ratanlal Vs Prahlad Jat & ors., 2017 (9) SCC 340

7. Swapan Kumar Chatterjee Vs C.B.I., 2019
(14) SCC 328

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav,
learned counsel for the applicant, Mr.
Deepak Yadav, learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 and Mr. Pankaj
Srivastava, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant application under
section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for
quashing of the order dated 03.09.2021
passed by Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Sambhal at Chandausi in S.T. No.
70 of 2019 (State Vs. Devendra Yadav),
arising out of Case Crime No.662 of 2017,
under sections 344, 376D, 354, 323, 504,
506,
115,
34
IPC,
Police
StationHayatnagar, District-Sambhal by which the
application under section 311 Cr.P.C.
moved by the applicant has been rejected.

3. Brief facts of the case are that an
FIR was lodged on 22.12.2017 by the
applicant against as many as five persons
under Sections 344, 376D, 354, 323, 506,
115, 34 IPC, Police Station-Hayatnagar,
District-Sambhal.
After
recording
the
statements of the victim/applicant under
Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the charge
sheet has been submitted, pursuant to
which, the trial court has proceeded to
record the statement of victim/applicant,
who has been examined as P.W.-1.
Subsequently,
on
03.09.2021,
the
applicant/victim has filed an application
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. before the trial
court to summon her for giving further
evidence
with
respect
to
certain
photographs and documents, which were
necessary for proper adjudication of the
case. However, the said application has
been rejected by the concerned court below
vide order dated 03.09.2021 on the ground
that the statement of the applicant/victim
has already been recorded on 25.02.2020
and all the evidences are available on
record. The victim has also been crossexamined, hence the said application under
Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been moved only to
delay the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the order dated 03.09.2021 by
which the application moved under section
311 Cr.P.C. was rejected by the court
below, has been passed in a mechanical
manner without applying judicious mind.
10 All. Km. Geeta Vs. State of U.P.
593
The reason assigned in the application
under section 311 Cr.P.C. is that it is
necessary to take some photographs and
documents on record, which shows that the
applicant/victim was kidnapped by the
accused as they are necessary for proper
adjudication of the trial, but the same has
not been considered while rejecting the
application.

5. Per contra, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing on behalf
of the State-respondent submits that the
statement of the applicant/victim has
already been recorded on 25.02.2020,
therefore, the applicant has moved the
application under section 311 Cr.P.C. on
03.09.2021 only with a view to delay the
disposal of the trial. The court below has
not committed any error in passing the
impugned order, therefore, it does not call
for any interference by this Court. Hence,
he submits that the present application is
liable to be rejected.

6. I have considered the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the parties
and gone through the records of the present
application.

7. Before fathoming correctness of the
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties, it will be worthwhile to refer
to Section 311 Cr.P.C., which 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 reexamine any such person if
his evidence appears to it to be essential to
the just decision of the case."

8. Assiduous scrutiny of aforesaid
provision clearly suggests that court enjoys
vast power to summon any person as a
witness or recall and re-examine a witness,
provided, same is essentially required for
just decision of the case. Moreover, such
exercise of power can be at any stage of
inquiry, trial or proceedings under the
Code, meaning thereby, applicant can file
an
application
at
any
time
before
conclusion of trial. Very object of Section
311 is to bring on record evidence not only
from the point of view of accused and
prosecution, but also from the point of view
of the orderly society.

9. The scope and object of the
provision is to enable the Court to
determine the truth and to render a just
decision after discovering all relevant facts
and obtaining proper proof of such facts, to
arrive at a just decision of the case. Power
must be exercised judiciously and not
capriciously or arbitrarily, as any improper
or capricious exercise of such power may
lead to undesirable results. An application
under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. must not be
allowed only to fill up a lacuna in the case
of the prosecution, or of the defence, or to
the disadvantage of the accused, or to cause
serious prejudice to the defence of the
accused, or to give an unfair advantage to
the opposite party. Further, the additional
evidence must not be received as a disguise
for retrial, or to change the nature of the
case against either of the parties. Such a
power must be exercised, provided that the
evidence that is likely to be tendered by a
witness, is germane to the issue involved.
An opportunity of rebuttal however, must
be given to the other party. The power
594 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
conferred under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must
therefore, be invoked by the Court only in
order to meet the ends of justice, for strong
and valid reasons, and the same must be
exercised
with
great
caution
and
circumspection. The very use of words
such as 'any Court', 'at any stage', or 'or any
enquiry, trial or other proceedings', 'any
person' and 'any such person' clearly spells
out that the provisions of this section have
been expressed in the widest possible
terms, and do not limit the discretion of the
Court in any way. There is thus no escape if
the fresh evidence to be obtained is
essential to the just decision of the case.
The determinative factor should therefore
be, whether the summoning/recalling of the
said witness is in fact, essential to the just
decision of the case.

10. Fair trial is the main object of
criminal procedure, and it is the duty of the
court to ensure that such fairness is not
hampered or threatened in any manner. Fair
trial entails the interest of the accused, the
victim and of the society, and therefore, fair
trial includes the grant of fair and proper
opportunities to the person concerned, and
the same must be ensured as this is a
constitutional, as well as a human right. Thus,
under no circumstances can a person's right to
fair trial be jeopardized. Adducing evidence
in support of the defence is a valuable right.
Denial of such right would amount to the
denial of a fair trial. Thus, it is essential that
the rules of procedure that have been
designed to ensure justice are scrupulously
followed, and the court must be zealous in
ensuring that there is no breach of the same.

11. Close scrutiny of aforesaid
provision of law further suggests that
Section 311 has two parts; first part
reserves a right to the parties to move an
appropriate application for re-examination
of a witness at any stage; but definitely the
second part is mandatory that casts a duty
upon court to re-examine or recall or
summon a witness at any stage if his/her
evidence appears to be essential for just
decision of case because, definitely the
underlying object of aforesaid provision of
law is to ensure that there is no failure of
justice on account of mistake on the part of
either of parties in bringing valuable piece
of evidence or leaving an ambiguity in the
statements of witnesses examined from
either side.

12. In this backdrop, it would be
useful to make a reference to certain
decisions rendered by the Supreme Court
on the interpretation of Section 311 of the
Code, wherein the Apex Court highlighted
the basic principles which are to be borne
in mind while dealing with an application
under Section 311of the Code.

13. In Natasa Singh v. C. B. I.,
reported in (2013) 5 SCC 741, the Apex
Court, after referring the various decisions
of the Supreme Court, has observed that the
power conferred under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
must therefore, be invoked by the court
only in order to meet the ends of justice and
such power should be exercised with great
caution and circumspection.

14. The scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C.
has been dealt in the case of Raja Ram
Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar and
another, reported in (2013)14 SCC 461,
wherein the Apex Court has held that
power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to
summon any person or witness or examine
any person already examined can be
exercised at any stage provided the same is
required for just decision of the case. It
may be relevant to take note of the
following paras of the judgment:-
10 All. Km. Geeta Vs. State of U.P.
595

"14. A conspicuous reading of
Section 311 Cr.P.C. would show that widest
of the powers have been invested with the
Courts when it comes to the question of
summoning a witness or to recall or reexamine any witness already examined. A
reading of the provision shows that the
expression "any" has been used as a pre-fix
to
"court",
"inquiry",
"trial",
"other
proceeding",
"person
as
a
witness",
"person
in
attendance
though
not
summoned as a witness", and "person
already examined". By using the said
expression "any" as a pre-fix to the various
expressions
mentioned
above,
it
is
ultimately stated that all that was required
to be satisfied by the Court was only in
relation to such evidence that appears to
the Court to be essential for the just
decision of the case. Section 138 of the
Evidence Act, prescribed the order of
examination of a witness in the Court.
Order of re-examination is also prescribed
calling for such a witness so desired for
such re-examination. Therefore, a reading
of Section 311 Cr.P.C. and Section 138
Evidence Act, insofar as it comes to the
question of a criminal trial, the order of reexamination at the desire of any person
under Section 138, will have to necessarily
be in consonance with the prescription
contained in Section 311 Cr.P.C. It is,
therefore, imperative that the invocation of
Section 311 Cr.P.C. and its application in a
particular case can be ordered by the
Court, only by bearing in mind the object
and purport of the said provision, namely,
for achieving a just decision of the case as
noted by us earlier. The power vested under
the said provision is made available to any
Court at any stage in any inquiry or trial or
other proceeding initiated under the Code
for the purpose of summoning any person
as a witness or for examining any person in
attendance, even though not summoned as
witness or to recall or re-examine any
person already examined. Insofar as
recalling and re-examination of any person
already
examined,
the
Court
must
necessarily consider and ensure that such
recall and re-examination of any person,
appears in the view of the Court to be
essential for the just decision of the case.
Therefore, the paramount requirement is
just decision and for that purpose the
essentiality of a person to be recalled and
re-examined has to be ascertained. To put it
differently, while such a widest power is
invested with the Court, it is needless to
state that exercise of such power should be
made judicially and also with extreme care
and caution."

15. In this context, I also wish to
make a reference to the judgment of the
Apex Court in Mannan SK and others vs.
State of West Bengal and another reported
in AIR 2014 SC 2950, wherein the the
Apex Court Court has held as under:-

"10. The aim of every court is to
discover truth. Section 311 of the Code is one
of many such provisions of the Code which
strengthen the arms of a court in its effort to
ferret out the truth by procedure sanctioned
by law. It is couched in very wide terms. It
empowers the court at any stage of any
inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the
Code to summon any person as a witness or
examine any person in attendance, though
not summoned as witness or recall and reexamine already examined witness. The
second part of the Section uses the word
'shall'. It says that the court shall summon
and examine or recall or re-examine any such
person if his evidence appears to it to be
essential to the just decision of the case. The
words 'essential to the just decision of the
case' are the key words. The court must form
an opinion that for the just decision of the
596 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
case recall or reexamination of the witness is
necessary. Since the power is wide it's
exercise has to be done with circumspection.
It is trite that wider the power greater is the
responsibility on the courts which exercise it.
The exercise of this power cannot be
untrammeled and arbitrary but must be only
guided by the object of arriving at a just
decision of the case. It should not cause
prejudice to the accused. It should not permit
the prosecution to fill-up the lacuna. Whether
recall of a witness is for filling-up of a lacuna
or it is for just decision of a case depends on
facts and circumstances of each case. In all
cases it is likely to be argued that the
prosecution is trying to fill-up a lacuna
because the line of demarcation is thin. It is
for the court to consider all the circumstances
and decide whether the prayer for recall is
genuine."

16. Further in the case of V.N. Patil
vs. K. Niranjan Kumar and Ors. reported
in (2021) 3 SCC 661 wherein the Apex
Court has held that the aim of every Court
is to discover the truth. Section 311 Cr.P.C.
is one of many such provisions which
strengthen the arms of a court in its effort
to
unearth
the
truth
by
procedure
sanctioned by law. At the same time, the
discretionary power vested under Section
311 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised judiciously
for strong and valid reasons and with
caution and circumspection to meet the
ends of justice.

17. The principles related to the
exercise of the power under Section 311
Cr.P.C. have been well settled by this Court in
Vijay Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another, reported in 2011 (8) SCC 136:-

"17. Though Section 311 confers
vast discretion upon the court and is
expressed in the widest possible terms, the
discretionary power under the said section
can be invoked only for the ends of justice.
Discretionary power should be exercised
consistently with the provisions of the Code
and the principles of criminal law. The
discretionary
power
conferred
under
Section 311 has to be exercised judicially
for reasons stated by the court and not
arbitrarily or capriciously. Before directing
the learned Special Judge to examine Smt
Ruchi Saxena as a court witness, the High
Court did not examine the reasons assigned
by the learned Special Judge as to why it
was not necessary to examine her as a
court witness and has given the impugned
direction without assigning any reason."

10.

18. This principle has been further
reiterated in Mannan Shaikh and Others
vs. State of West Bengal and Another,
reported in 2014 (13) SCC 59 and
thereafter in the case of Ratanlal vs.
Prahlad Jat and Others, 2017 (9) SCC 340
and Swapan Kumar Chatterjee vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation, 2019 (14) SCC
328. The relevant Paras of Swapan Kumar
Chatterjee (supra) are as under:-

"10. The first part of this section
which
is
permissive
gives
purely
discretionary authority to the criminal
court and enables it at any stage of inquiry,
trial or other proceedings under the Code
to act in one of the three ways, namely: (i)
to summon any person as a witness; or (ii)
to examine any person in attendance,
though not summoned as a witness; or (iii)
to recall and reexamine any person already
examined. The second part, which is
mandatory, imposes an obligation on the
court (i) to summon and examine or (ii) to
recall and reexamine any such person if his
evidence appears to be essential to the just
decision of the case.
10 All. Km. Geeta Vs. State of U.P.
597

11. It is well settled that the
power conferred under Section 311 should
be invoked by the court only to meet the
ends of justice. The power is to be exercised
only for strong and valid reasons and it
should be exercised with great caution and
circumspection. The court has vide power
under this section to even recall witnesses
for reexamination or further examination,
necessary in the interest of justice, but the
same has to be exercised after taking into
consideration the facts and circumstances
of each case. The power under this
provision shall not be exercised if the court
is of the view that the application has been
filed as an abuse of the process of law."

19. Aforesaid exposition of law
clearly suggests that a fair trial is main
object of criminal jurisprudence and it is
duty of court to ensure such fairness is not
hampered or threatened in any manner. It
has been further held in the aforesaid
judgments that fair trial entails interests of
accused, victim and society and therefore,
grant of fair and proper opportunities to the
persons concerned, must be ensured being a
constitutional goal, as well as a human
right. The Apex Court has categorically
held in the aforesaid judgment that
adducing evidence in support of the
defence is a valuable right and denial of
such right would amount to denial of a fair
trial.

20. The Apex Court, while culling out
certain principles required to be borne in
mind by the courts while considering
applications under Section 311, has held
that exercise of widest discretionary powers
under Section 311 should ensure that
judgment should not be rendered on
inchoate, inconclusive and speculative
presentation of facts. Hon'ble Apex Court
has further held that if evidence of any
witness appears to be essential for the just
decision of the case, it is the duty of the
court to summon and examine or recall and
re-examine any such person because very
object of exercising power under Section
311 is to find out truth and render a just
decision. Most importantly, in the judgment
referred to herein above, the Apex Court
has held that court should bear in mind that
no party in trial can be foreclosed from
correcting errors and that if proper
evidence was not adduced or a relevant
material was not brought on record due to
any inadvertence, the Court should be
magnanimous in permitting such mistakes
to be rectified.

21. From perusal of the records of the
present application and applications filed
by the application under Section 311
Cr.P.C. as well as from examining the order
impugned, it is an admitted position that
the victim/applicant has already been
examined and cross-examined. From the
application made by the applicant under
Section 311 Cr.P.C., it is apparently clear
that the same has been filed only for
lingering on the trial of the case.

22. The fairness of trial has to be seen
not only from the point of view of the
victim, but also from the point of view of
the accused and the society. It is not
possible to lay down precise situations
when such power can be exercised. The
Legislature in its wisdom has left the power
undefined. Thus, the scope of power under
Section 311 Cr.P.C. has to be considered
from case to case.

23. The victim/applicant cannot have
the witness recalled for re-examination as a
matter of right and extraordinary provision
cannot be used as an afterthought to fill the
gaps.
598 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

24. Considering the materials brought
on record and keeping the principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for
exercise of power under section 311
Cr.P.C., this Court is of the opinion that
observations and findings recorded by the
trial Court in rejecting the application
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. of the applicant
under the facts and circumstances of the
case are fully sustainable. The trial Court
has committed no illegality or infirmity in
the order impugned by rejecting the
application of the applicant. There appears
no abuse of process of the Court also.
There is no evidence on record to satisfy
this Court that trial would be seriously
prejudiced if the victim/applicant is not
recalled for re-examination or further
examination.

25. In view of the above, the
application of the applicant having no merit
deserves to be rejected. In the result, the
application is rejected.

26. The office is directed to
communicate this order to the court
concerned to proceed with the case in
accordance with law.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 598
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 28225 of 2021

Sujeet Kumar Vishwakarma ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Raj Kumar Sharma

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 161,164,173
(8) & 482 - Inherent power - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Section 302,307 - scope of
adjudication and its ambit at the time of
framing of the charge - scope to discharge
the
accused
u/s
245(2)
Cr.P.C.
is
extremely
limited
-
only
exceptional
circumstances which may justify such
discharge after passing of the summoning
order without any further evidence of
such a nature being produced which may
completely absolve or exonerate the
accused and the charge against them may
appear to be groundless. (Para - 10,13,)

F.I.R. for an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. -
Marriage of daughter of first informant -
solemnized with one - co-accused having an
affair with his daughter - enticing away
daughter of opposite party no.2- approached
High Court - daughter returned and started
residing with opposite party no.2 - co-accused
came along with his friend on motorcycle -
opened fire upon mother of opposite party no.2
- intention to kill her - statement of injured not
recorded - critical condition - case converted for
an
offence
under
Section
302
I.P.C.
-
supplementary
charge
sheet
-
discharge
application
-
rejected
in
a
mechanical
manner.(Para - 3 to 5)

HELD:- Prima facie case made out against
accused. Prayer for quashing or setting aside
impugned
order
refused.
No
illegality,
impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned
order or the proceedings under challenge. No
abuse of court's process perceptible in the
same. (Para -16,17)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. St. of Bihar Vs Ramesh Singh , 1977 (4) SCC
39