- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. The applicants, through this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the order dated 13.07.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Rampur in S.T. No. 392 of 2011, State Vs. Suresh Gangwar and others, by which he has rejected the application moved by the accused-applicants before him for summoning the case diary of Case Crime No. 575 of 2012, under Sections 302 I.P.C. and 3 sub-Section 2 and Section 5 S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Milak, District Rampur.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicants submitted that the Court below has committed a patent error of law in rejecting the applicants' prayer for summoning the case diary of Case Crime No. 575 of 2012 without examining whether it was necessary for the accused- applicants to confront the prosecutrix with her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during course of investigation of Case Crime No. 575 of 2012 while cross-examining her in the present case. He further submitted that the impugned order if allowed to stand will result the miscarriage of justice. Per contra learned A.G.A. made his submissions in support of the impugned order. I have heard both sides and perused the impugned order. The applicants are facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 452, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1)10 S.C./S.T. Act in the instant Session Trial which arises out of Case Crime No. 484 of 2011. The accused-applicants have miserably failed to demonstrate the purpose for which it is necessary for them to confront the prosecutrix with her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during course of the investigation of Case Crime No. 575 of 2012, under Sections 302 I.P.C. and 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act in which the brothers of the accused-applicants have been charged with the murder to husband of the complainant prosecutrix (Smt. Rani), while cross-examining her in the present case. The learned Sessions Judge has given cogent reasons in the impugned order for rejecting the applicants prayer for summoning case diary of Case Crime No. 575 of 2012.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicants has failed to show that the impugned order suffers from any illegality or infirmity requiring any interference by this Court. The application lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.;