- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Pradeep Kumar Kolhe v. State Of M.P. .
Factual and Procedural Background
The petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. challenged the order dated 08.05.2018 rejecting the petitioner’s application under section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that it was filed to delay the proceedings. The matter was heard on the question of admission. [1][2]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioner’s application under section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. [2][3]
- Whether the guidelines framed by the Delhi High Court and applied in Vijay Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) governed the present case. [3][4]
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner relied on the Delhi High Court’s guidelines and the decision in Vijay Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi). [3]
- The trial court allegedly rejected the application without considering the ingredients of section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C.; therefore, the impugned order should be set aside. [3]
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Vijay Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) | Delhi High Court guidelines concerning section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. | The Court held that the decision and guidelines were not applicable to the present facts. [3][4] |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court considered the reasoning given by the trial court and the petitioner’s stated objection that cross-examination of the star witness would disclose the defence of the petitioner/accused. [4]
On that basis, the Court concluded that the trial court had committed no legal error in dismissing the application. It further held that the Delhi High Court’s decision and guidelines relied upon by the petitioner did not apply in the circumstances of the present case. [4]
Holding and Implications
PETITION DISMISSED. The Court found the petition devoid of merit and upheld the rejection of the application under section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. [4]
The direct consequence was that the trial court’s order remained undisturbed. No new precedent was set.
1. Heard on the question of admission.
2. By this petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., petitioner is challenging the order dated 08.05.2018 by which their application under section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected on the ground that the same was filed just to delay the matter.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the guidelines framed by the Delhi High Court and the law laid down on the basis of the aforesaid guidelines by the learned Single Judge in the matter of Vijay Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) dated 03.07.2017 and submitted that learned trial Court without considering the ingredients under section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. rejected the prayer, hence prays for setting aside the impugned order.
4. On due consideration of the reasoning assigned by the learned trial Court so also the fact that as per para-3 of the application the only objection raised by the petitioner is that if the star witness is cross-examined the defence of the petitioner/accused would be disclosed, we are of the view that learned trial Court did not commit any legal error while dismissing the application of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision and guidelines framed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Vijay Kumar (supra) will not be applicable in the present case. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.
Alert