ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA in opposition.
(2.) THIS application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashment of order dated 31.01.2015 passed by A.D.J. V, Farrukhabad in S.T. No.161 of 2011 (State Vs. Awadesh Dixit and others) under Sections 498 -A, 304 -B, 302 IPC at P.S. Mau Darvaja, Farrukhabad.
(3.) AS per factual matrix of this case some criminal proceedings were drawn against the appellant, which proceedings culminated into aforesaid Sessions Trial No.161 of 2011 under the aforesaid Sections of Indian Penal Code. During the course of proceedings, evidence for the prosecution was underway and P.W.1 Sushil Chandra was examined by the prosecution thereafter prosecution produced P.W.2 Pushkar Chaturvedi, who was examined -in -chief by the prosecution on 18.11.2014 thereafter after availing adjournment defence cross -examined P.W.2 Pushkar Chaturvedi on 7.1.2015. This cross -examination was initially confined to one page/one -sheet and the same remained un -concluded due to the reason that the counsel for the accused was not feeling well and due to which he left the court room. At this, the opportunity to cross -examine P.W.2 Pushkar Chaturvedi by the defence was closed. Thereafter an application 44 -B was moved by the defence under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recall of P.W.2 Pushkar Chaturvedi for further remaining cross -examination. The court below after affording opportunity of hearing to the applicant as well as the prosecution found the applicant guilty of adopting dilatory tactics and rejected aforesaid recall application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Hence, this Application. Submission has been made on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is always willing to co -operate with the trial and the opportunity to cross -examined P.W.2 Pushkar Chaturvedi be given, because due to the ill health of the counsel accused cannot be penalized. It would be most unfair under the facts and circumstances of the case that the witness of fact produced by the prosecution remained uncrossed by the defence. If any adjournment is sought by the defence that would not be interpreted to be intended to have been sought for causing delay in disposal of the trial, therefore, one last opportunity should be given to the defence to cross -examine the aforesaid witness.;