HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9314 of 2025 Court No. - 14 HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Rajiva Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. This application has been filed with the following prayer:- "To quash the impugned order dated 9.9.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Hardoi in S.T. No. 278/2013, arising out of Crime No. 435/2012, U/s 147, 302, 323, 506, 325, 427 I.P.C., Police Station- Sursa, District- Hardoi, whereby rejecting the application of the accused persons for summoning the defence witnesses, contained as Annexure No. 1 to this petition and also issue a direction commanding learned trial Court to summon the defence witnesses, namely, Constable- Collector Kumar Dixit, the then writer along with G.D. dated 31.7.2012 and 1.8.2012 of the office of Bhrashtachar Nivaran Sangthan, Treasury Branch, Lucknow and S.I.- Deepu Kumari, Police Station- R.P.F., Raheemabad, Lucknow along with the record of Case Crime No. 436/2012 and Crime No. 437/2012." 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants were falsely implicated in the present case by mentioning their names in the F.I.R. During the course of investigation, name of the applicant no.2 was dropped by the Investigating Officer. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajiva Dubey, Indoo Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Lallan Singh And Another .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) It is further submitted that on the date of incident, the applicant no.1 was traveling from Lucknow to Hardoi in a train. As the applicant no.1 did not have any ticket, penalty was imposed on him by Traveling Ticket Examiner by issuing a ticket. But, this fact was not considered by the Investigating Officer and the charge-sheet was submitted against the applicant no.1. The applicant no.2 was working as Constable in Anti- Corruption Organization at Lucknow. In the G.D./attendance register, which was written at 9:30 am on 31.07.2012 and on 01.08.2012, the presence of the applicant no.2 is shown in the office. The name of the applicant no.2 was dropped by the Investigating Officer on the basis of aforesaid G.D. of the office of Anti Corruption Organization, Lucknow with the observation that the applicant no.2 was present in the office, therefore, his involvement in the alleged incident is improbable. It is next submitted that the charge-sheet was submitted against other persons including the applicant no.1 and trial was proceeded against them. After recording the statements of the witnesses by learned trial Court, the applicant no.2 was summoned. The statements of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. have already been recorded. It is also submitted that an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. was moved by the applicants for summoning of Sub Inspector- Deepu Kumari working in R.P.F., who caught the applicant no.1 in the train without ticket and penalty ticket was issued by the Traveling Ticket Examiner and request was also made for summoning of Mr. Collector Kumar Dixit, Constable/G.D. writer posted in the office of Anti Corruption Organization, Lucknow, who has written the concerned G.D. on 31.07.2012 and 01.08.2012 at 9:30 am. This application was rejected by learned trial Court in the most mechanical manner, hence, indulgence of this Court is required. 5. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicants and submits that vague application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicants and there is no relevant averment as argued by the applicants' counsel. He further submits that as per the prosecution case, the alleged incident is of the date 1.8.2012 at 6 am in the morning and the place of incident is about 100 kilometers away from the office of Anti Corruption Organisation. He A482 No. 9314 of 2025 2 also submits that the injured eye witness as well as Investigating Officer has already been examined before learned trial Court, but their statements have not been annexed herewith. He next submits that opportunity of cross examination of aforesaid witnesses was also given to the applicants, and once vague application is filed, there is no occasion to allow the applicants for summoning the witnesses. 6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and pursuing the impugned order as well as other relevant materials, it is evident that the application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. is filed without mentioning the specific reason and all these submissions are oral in nature as there is no pleading in the application about the fact that the applicant no.1 was challaned by S.I.- Deepu Kumari, Police Station- R.P.F., thereafter, penalty was imposed on him by issuing the ticket along with fine. The G.D., which is relied by the applicant no.2 is of date 1.8.2012 at 9:30 am. The said application filed by the applicants is vague and the trial of the case in question is at the stage of argument. In such circumstances, no interference of this court is required. 7. With above observations, this application, being misconceived, is dismissed. November 20, 2025 Arpan A482 No. 9314 of 2025 3 (Rajeev Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench