LexASHUTOSH PATHAK versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. R1: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH R2: SHIKHA PATHAK
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1831 : 2025 INSC 534 Ashutosh Pathak v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. R1: State of Uttar Pradesh R2: Shikha Pathak (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10852 of 2024) 04 February 2025 [Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration The grievance of the petitioner in the instant case is two-fold. Firstly, the in-part acceptance of his application u/s.311 of the CrPC and consequent non-summoning of witness-K. Secondly, closure of the opportunity to examine the summoned witness-V. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.311 – The petitioner filed an application u/s.311 of the CrPC/Code for summoning two persons, viz., V and K – The Trial Court partly allowed the application and issued summons to the witness-V and directed him to be present on 30.05.2024 – The record of order/ proceedings of 30.05.2024 is not available – Thereafter, on 05.06.2024, though the witness was present, an application was moved by the counsel for petitioner on the ground of illness and the matter was posted for the next day as last opportunity to examine the witness – On 06.06.2024, the witness-V was absent and the trial Court closed the opportunity to examine the said witness – Aggrieved by the orders dated 18.05.2024 and 06.06.2024, the petitioner filed application u/s.482 of CrPC before the High Court, which was dismissed: Held: From the above sequence of events, it is crystal clear that the defence was given ample opportunity to examine the witness-V – The onus was on them to ensure his presence and examine him – This Court does not agree with the argument advanced the petitioner that since the witness was arrayed in the list of prosecution witnesses, it was incumbent on the prosecution to examine him in the first instance – It is also noted that the said witness never entered the witness box as a prosecution witness, and he was summoned as an independent witness on application made by the petitioner – * Author 1832 [2025] 2 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports The statements of the accused persons u/s.313 of the Code were recorded on 01.05.2023 – The first application u/s. 311 of the Code filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Trial Court on 25.08.2023 and the matter was posted for defence evidence on 10.09.2023 – Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present application under Section 311 of the Code on 19.09.2023 – Earlier, the High Court vide order dated 25.07.2022 had directed expeditious decision in the trial – In this factual background, the petitioner cannot be permitted to adopt dilatory tactics and delay the conclusion of the trial – The conduct of the petitioner in preferring successive applications under Section 311 of the Code and seeking adjournments goes to show his evasive tactics, non-cooperation and disinterest in early conclusion of the trial – This is the abuse of the process of law – There is no infirmity with the impugned order. [Paras 19, 20] Case Law Cited Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana [2023] 11 SCR 723 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1086 – relied on. List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Witness; Closure of examination of witness; Summoned witness; Dilatory tactics; Delay. Case Arising From EXTRAORDINARY CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10852 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 03.07.2024 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in A482 No. 5718 of 2024 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Petitioner: Varun Mishra, Vikram Pratap Singh, Kranti Pratap Singh, Vaibhav Vikram Singh, Anuj Verma, Ankit Jindal, Tushar Rawal. Advs. for the Respondents: Rohit K. Singh, Pritam Bishwas, Anshuman Siddharth Nayak, Vipin Pal, Raja Panda, Rahul Kulhare, Ms. Mahika Malik, Krishan Mourya. [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1833 Ashutosh Pathak v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. The present petition arises from the Final Order and Judgment dated 03.07.2024 in Application under Section 482 No.5718 of 2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’) [2024:AHC- LKO:45305] passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Bench at Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’), whereby the petitioner’s plea, seeking quashing of Orders dated 18.05.2024 and 06.06.2024 passed by the Court of the learn
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.