BABU ALIAS MANISH AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for setting aside/quashing the impugned order dated 01.09.2016 passed

by the learned IInd Additional District Judge, Roorkee District Haridwar in Session Trial No.112 of 2012 “State vs. Narendra and others under

Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, Roorkee District       Haridwar whereby the application of the applicant for permitting

them to cross examine the PW1 & PW2 has been rejected.Â

2. Brief facts of the case are that applicants and one another person Naresh are accused in criminal case, pursuant to which the trial of the said

case was commenced as Session Trial No.112 of 2012 State vs. Narendra and others under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 IPC, P.S. Kotwali

Roorkee District Haridwar, which is pending before the IInd Additional District Judge Roorkee District Haridwar. An application was moved by the

applicants alongwith accused Naresh under Section 311 Cr.P.C. before the trial court for cross examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2, which was rejected

by the IInd Additional Session Judge Roorkee on 25.01.2016. Aggrieved by the said order, C482 Petition No.1004 of 2016 was preferred by co-

accused Naresh before this Court. The said C482 Petition was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 16.08.2016 in the following

manner:

“7) Application under Section C-482 Cr.P.C. is, therefore, decided by modifying the order impugned by directing that PW1 and PW2 shall

appear before the trial court on 01.09.2016, on which date they will be cross examined by the applicant, on priority. If the circumstances are

beyond control, then liberty is granted to the applicant to cross examine them on 02.09.2016 and 03.09.2016, as well. Learned trial court shall not

postpone the cross examination beyond 03.09.2016.â€​

Thereafter in compliance of the order of this Court co-accused Naresh was permitted to cross examine P.W.1 and P.W.2. An application was also

moved by the applicants for permitting them to cross examine P.W.1 and P.W.2. The learned IInd Additional Session Judge rejected the said

application of the applicants on 01.09.2016 observing that the High Court only allowed accused Naresh to cross examine P.W.1 and P.W.2.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that once permission was granted to one of the co-accused to cross examine the witnesses P.W.1 and

P.W.2, the learned IInd Additional Session Judge should not have refused the applicants to cross examine them. He submits that till date the trial is at

the stage of prosecution evidence and if the applicants are provided opportunity of cross examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2, there will be no delay in

the proceedings of the said trial. He further submits that cross examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is necessary to reveal the truth and an opportunity to

adduce the defence is essential for just decision of the case, otherwise the accused will be deprived of their legal rights.

I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties. Prayer made by the petitioner cannot be allowed due to the following reasons:

 On 25.01.2016 the application moved by the applicants and others, under Sections 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the prosecution witnesses P.W.1 and

P.W.2 for cross examination, was rejected by the Court. Against that order only one person approached the High Court. The applicants did not

approach the High Court. Therefore, the order dated 25.01.2016 became final so far present applicants are concerned. Further, the order impugned

was passed by the Court on 01.09.2016 and present petition is filed belatedly in the month of March 2018. Thus, I am of the view that application has

been filed by them to delay the proceedings of the case. Â

The C482 petition is dismissed.   Â

No order as to costs.Â

Â