Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8816 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 982 of 2025 Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanjeev Nigam And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State for the State of U.P. and perused the record. 2. The present application has been filed for the following main reliefs:- "For fact, seasons and circumstances states in the accompanying affidavit it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 21.12.24 passed by Additional session Judge/ Speedy trail court no 1 Lucknow in case crime no 39/17 U/S-323,506,376,354 IPC relating to P.S Thakurganj District Lucknow and also be pleased to allow the applicants /accused to cross examination of PW 1/Victim in the interest of law and justice. It is further most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to stay the further proceeding of case crime no. 39/17 under section 323,506,376,354 IPC relating to P.S Thakurganj District Lucknow pending in the court of Pending in court of Additional session Judge/ Speedy trail court no 1 Lucknow during the pending of the present petition in the interest of law and justice." 3. By means of present application the applicant has assailed the order dated 21.12.2024 passed in Session Trial No. 45 of 2019 (State vs. Sanjeev Nigam and others) by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court-First, Lucknow (in short 'trial court'), whereby the trial court has rejected the prayer for giving an opportunity of cross examining of victim (PW-1). The order dated 21.12.2024 reads as under:- "21-12-2024 पततवलल अभभययजन अभभययजन सतकय हहतत भनयत हह। आवहदकगण अभभयतकगण दतरत पसततत पतररनतपत अअ०धतरत 311 द०प०सअ० पर उभयपक कह भवदतन अधधवकतगण कय सतनत गयत तरत पततवलल कत समयक पररशललन भकयत। भनसततरण पतररनतपत अअ०धतरत 311 द . प . सअ . आवहदकगण अभभयतकगण कक ओर सह पतररनतपत अअ०धतरत 311 द०प०सअ० पसततत कर करन भकयत हह भक आवहदकगण अभभयतकगण कक उपरयक सत परलकण मम पल.डबलल-1 सररतत सह धजरह हयनल रल। आवहदकगण कह वककल बतर एसयधसयशन दतरत पतररत ररजयलयलशन एवअ अपनह सवतसरय परलकण हहतत डतकटर कह यहतह चलह गयह रह। नयतयतलय नह पल. डबलल-1 सररतत सह अभभयतकगण कत धजरह कत अवसर समतप कर भदयत। अभभयतकगण कक तरफ सह जतनबलझकर गलतल नहह कक गयल हह। आवहदकगण अभभयतकगण दतरत पल.डबलल-1 सह धजरह हहतत अनतमभत पदतन भकयह जतनह कक यतचनत भकयत हह। भवदतन ए.डल.जल.सल. भक. दतरत आवहदकगण अभभयतकगण कह उक पतररनतपत पर यह अअकन भकयत गयत हह भक सतकल/ पलभडतत लगतततर दय भतधरयय पर धजरह हहतत उपससरत रहल हह पयतरप समय भदयत गयत हह। भदनतअक 20-4-2024 कय लगभग दय पहज सह अधधक कक धजरह कक गयल हह। पतररनतपत कत भवरयध भकयत जततत हह। सतनत एवअ पततवलल कत अवलयकन भकयत। पततवलल कह अवलयकन सह भवभदत हह भक वतभदनल पलभडतत पल. डबलल 1 कक मतखय परलकत तरत पभत परलकत भदनतअक 20-4- 2024 कय अभभधलधखत कक गयल तरत शहष पभत परलकत हहतत अभभयतकगण अभगम भतधर 28-6-2024 पर सतकल पलभडतत नयतयतलय मम उपससरत रहल हह परनतत अभभयतकगण कक ओर सह सरगन पतररनतपत पसततत भकयत गयत हह. धजसह नयतयतलय दतरत खतररज भकयत गयत हह। भदनतअक 28-6-2024 कय धजरह कत अवसर समतप हयनह कह पशचतत अभभयतकगण दतरत भदनतअक 19-9-2024 कय अअ०धतरत 311 द०प०सअ० कत पतररनतपत पसततत भकयत गयत हह। ऐसत पतलत हयतत हह आवहदकगण अभभयतकगण दतरत पतररनतपत अ०धतरत-311 द०प०सअ० पकरण कय भवलसमबत करनह कह आशय सह पसततत भकयत गयत हह। मतमलह कह समसत तथयय कय दभषगत रखतह हहए पतररनतपत अनतगरत धतरत 311 द०प०सअ० सवलकतर भकयह जतनह ययगय नहह हह। आदहश पतररनतपत अभभयतकगण अअ०धतरत 311 द०प०सअ० भनरसत भकयत जततत हह। पततवलल वतसतह अभभययजन सतकय हहतत भदनतअक 18-1-2025 कक पहश हय।" 4. Upon due consideration the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the preposition settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav and another, (2016) 2 SCC 402; Swapan Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2019 (14) SCC 328; Hanuman Prasad (Supra), Natasha Singh vs. CBI, (2013) 5 SCC 741 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 828 : 2013 SCC OnLine SC 444; State of Haryana vs. Ram Mehar and others; (2016) 8 SCC 762; Varsha Garg vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 986 and also by this Court in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 274 of 2022 (Ram Nayak Singh vs. State of U.P. & Another), this Court finds that interference in the matter is required. It is for the following facts/reasons:- (i) The victim (PW-1) was examined (examination-in-chief) and cross-examined in part on 20.04.2024. (ii) For further cross examination, the case was fixed for 28.06.2024. (iii) On 28.06.2024, the defence sought adjournment and request of adjournment was rejected and opportunity to cross-examine the victim (PW-1) was closed. (iv) On 19.09.2024, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed for permitting the defence to cross-examine victim (PW-1). (v) On 30.10.2024, the counsel for the defence Sri H.S. Alvi, who sought the adjournment on 28.06.2024, expired. (vi) From the aforesaid, this Court finds that there is no intention of the defence/applicant to delay the proceedings in issue. 5. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 21.12.2024 passed by the trial court is hereby set aside. 6. The trial court would fix a date for cross examination of victim (PW-1) by the applicants and if possible the victim (PW-1) be cross examined. On the date fixed, if the learned counsel for the applicants/defence fails to cross examine victim (PW-1), the trial court shall proceed in the matter without providing further opportunity to the applicants. For this purpose Rs. 3,000/- shall be deposited by the applicants before the trial court, for the purposes of meeting out the expense of concerned court witness and if some amount remains the same be provided to District Legal Service Authority. 7. With the aforesaid, the instant application is allowed. Order Date :- 11.2.2025 Arun/- Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench