Abhishek Bhardwaj vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

N.S. Dhanik, J

By means of the present application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 06.06.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Laksar, District Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 203 of 2018 (Case Crime No. 529 of 2018) "State Vs. Abhish ek Bhardwaj" for the offences punishable under Section s 302 of IPC registered at P.S. Laksar, District Haridwar pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Laksar, District Haridwar, whereby the application filed by the applicant, under Section 311 Cr.P.C., for summoning PW-2 (Amandeep) for re-cross examination was set aside.

In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant lodged an F.I.R. on 06.06.2018 against the present applicant alleging that on 05.06.2018 one Aman Brijlal took the son of the complainant at Laksar Bridge at Railway Cabin where the present applicant was present and the applicant murdered the son of the complainant.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, after lodging of the FIR the Investigating Officer conducted a biased and tainted investigation in collusion with the complainant and, without collecting any credible evidence against the applicant, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet under Section 302 of IPC on 01.09.2018. He would submit that the on the said charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by the Court below and, in the trial, evidence of PW-2 Amandeep was recorded on 30.02.2019. Learned counsel would submit that on the same day the applicant engaged a counsel who, on the direction of the learned Court below, cross-examined PW-2 on that day itself. Learned counsel would submit that, since cross-examination of PW-2 was done on the very same day when the counsel on behalf of the applicant was engaged and the counsel could not study the file properly, some relevant questions remained to be asked from PW-2. He would submit that the applicant filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for cross-examining PW-2 again, which was dismissed by the learned Court below vide its order dated 06.06.2019.

Learned State Counsel would submit that the lower Court had granted sufficient time to the counsel for the applicant to cross-examine PW-2. He would submit that the present C-482 application is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

In its order dated 06.06.2019, the learned Court below had recorded that, looking to the testimony of the PW-2, it was clear that long and detailed cross-examination was done by the defence and questions were asked relating to the knife used in the murder. Learned Court below recorded that in such circumstances, it was not possible to accept that PW-2 was not examined in detail and that some relevant question remained to be asked from him. Thereafter, the learned Court below opined that the witness should be cross-examined completely on the same day it is produced before the Court and once the cross-examination is over then it is only in certain mandatory circumstances that it can call upon the witness to cross-examine him again. The learned Court below, thereafter, dismissed the application filed by the applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

Having regard to all the fact and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Court below dated 06.06.2019 and there is no force in the submissions put forth on behalf of the applicant. Consequently, the present C-482 application is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.