HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9173 of 2025 Court No. - 14 HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application is filed with the prayer to quash the proceeding of Case No.115 of 2007, arising out of Case Crime No.22/2006 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Barasagwar, District - Unnao. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that charge sheet has already been filed by the Investigating Officer in the most mechanical manner mentioning the name of ten witnesses, namely, Ramasarey - informant/injured, Ratnesh - injured witness, Ramesh - injured witness, Dinesh - eye witness, Binda - eye witness, Smt. Laxmi - eye witness, Dr. I.N. Bajpai - medical expert, Dr. A.K. Tiwari - medical expert, Hemnath Yadav - Head Constable, Ashok Kumar Yadav - S.H.O./I.O. of crime in question. He also submits that prosecution placed only three injured witnesses, namely, Ramasarey, Ratnesh, Ramesh, however, alleged eye witnesses were not produced before the trial court. He further submits that other witnesses including Doctor, Investigating Officer have already been examined, therefore, application was filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning one alleged witness, Smt. Laxmi but the said application was rejected by Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjeev Trivedi, Mohd. Shahid Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Prem Shankar Yadav .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) the competent court in the most mechanical manner, therefore, indulgence of this Court is necessary. 4. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicant and submits that three injured witnesses have already been examined, trial is pending since year 2007 and the case was listed under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He also submits that in the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. no specific point has been mentioned and only general avernments have been made for summoning of one of the alleged eye witness, Smt. Laxmi Devi, therefore, there is no necessity for summoning Smt. Laxmi Devi as vague avernment has been made in the petition. He further submits that there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial court and present application is liable to be dismissed. 5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of the application as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that the offence of the case in question is of the year 2006, trial is pending since 2007 and three injured witnesses have been examined and now case is going on under Section 313 Cr.P.C., therefore, opportunity to produce the defence witness is available to the applicant but in the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. no specific reason has been given for summoning the alleged eye witness, Smt. Laxmi Devi, in such circumstances, when proper reasons have not been given in the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., this Court is of the view that no interference is needed for summoning of witnesses. 6. In view of the above, the present application is dismissed. October 31, 2025 GauraV/- A482 No. 9173 of 2025 2 (Rajeev Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench