Court No. - 81 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13699 of 2021
Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Jain
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Narayan Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Bharti
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State of U.P./opposite party no. 1 and Mr. Pankaj Bharti, learned counsel for opposite party no. 4 through video conferencing and perused the record. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant with a prayer to quash the order dated 05.04.2021 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Muzaffar Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 592 of 2004 (State Vs. Dharmpal and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 24 of 2004, under Section 364 IPC, Police Station Nai Mandi, District Muzaffar Nagar.
At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant does not want to press the relief as sought by him for quashing of order dated 05.04.2021. He submits that the applicant is informant in this case and he is aggrieved by not producing the original supplementary case diary nos. 14 to 21 and identification report of this case by the police before the trial court. It is submitted that pursuant to the letter dated 16.08.2019 of the trial court, Circle Officer, Nai Mandi, Muzaffar Nagar submitted typed copy of entry made in Register No. 4 regarding supplementary case diary nos. 1 to 21 vide his report dated 03.09.2019. Thereafter, another report dated 28.10.2020 was submitted by the police mentioning inter alia that Z Register of the year 2004 is not being traced out, therefore, report dated 07.10.2020 has been submitted to Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffar Nagar for fixing the responsibility of the person concerned after getting preliminary inquiry done in the matter. Lastly, on 10.03.2021, a report was submitted by the Circle Officer to the trial court mentioning that there is no possibility of availability of duplicate copy of the supplementary case diary nos. 14 to 21. The gist of progress of the investigation is mentioned in Register No. 4, therefore, typed copy alongwith attested xerox copy of Register No. 4 are being submitted before the Court which may be treated as secondary evidence in the interest of justice. Much emphasis has been given that in the order dated 05.04.2021, the trial court Neutral Citation No. - 2022:AHC:4395
1
has observed that no prayer has been made seeking permission to lead secondary evidence. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dhanpat Vs. Sheo Ram (Deceased) Through Legal Representatives and others, (2020) 16 SCC 209, there is no mandatory requirement for moving application seeking permission to lead secondary evidence. Lastly, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he may be permitted to move appropriate application seeking permission to lead secondary evidence in the light of the observation made by learned trial court.
Learned AGA appearing for the State of U.P./opposite party no. 1 submits that he has no objection in case, appropriate application seeking permission to lead secondary evidence is moved before the trial court.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court feels it appropriate that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this application pending.
Accordingly, this application is disposed of with liberty to the applicant/prosecution to move appropriate application seeking permission to lead secondary evidence relating to contents of supplementary case diary nos. 14 to 21 and concerned identification report before the trial court. In case, such an application is moved, the same shall be decided in accordance with the law within two weeks from the date of moving such application.
Order Date :- 12.1.2022 Shubham
2
Comments