HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8744 of 2025 Court No. - 14 HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present petition has been filed with the following prayer:- "to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 24/09/2025 passed in Sessions Trial No. 40/2019, 'State Vs Ajay Mishra' currently pending before Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Sultanpur, arising out of FIR No. 366/2018, under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 452, 34 IPC, P.S Kudwar, District Sultanpur, as contained in Annexure-1 to this Petition and to allow the application bearing No. 161Kha (Annexure-6) for the relief claimed therein, in the interest of justice." 3. In pursuance of the earlier order, relevant instructions are placed by learned AGA duly signed by Mr. Vinod Kumar Yadav, Sub-Inspector, P.S. Kudwar, District Sultanpur. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in relation to the alleged incident, FIR No. 366 of 2018 was lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 452, 34 of IPC, P.S. Kudwar District Sultanpur. Charge-sheet was submitted against six persons including the petitioner and thereafter FIR No. 419 of 2018 was also lodged by the petitioner 498A, 323, 307, 427, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act at P.S. Kudwar, Sultanpur. As in the FIR No. 366 of 2018, chargesheet was submitted and the final report was submitted in FIR No. 419 of 2018 which was lodged by the petitioner thereafter protest was filed and later on same was treated as complaint case no. 600 of 2024 under Section 323, 325, 506 IPC. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sukh Deo Singh, Paritosh Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Arun Sinha, Ram Chandra Singh, Ram Kushal Tiwari Archana .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the trial of the present case was going on and after recording the statement under Section 313 CrPC, request was made for calling Dr. Shiv Mani and he was summoned along with X- Ray plates as well as reports as a defence witness and he placed seven X- Ray plates before the Court concerned but the report related to the chest X- Ray was not available and thereafter application was filed for summoning of the X-Ray report related to the chest of accused in case but the same was rejected by the learned Court below in the most mechanical manner, therefore, petition may be allowed by issuing necessary direction for producing the X-Report related to the chest of accused Brijesh. 6. Learned AGA as well as counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer of applicant and submitted as the case is proceeded for the defence evidence and it is duty of the accused to ensure the production of all the relevant witness as well as the material. As earlier on the application of the applicant and other accused persons dated 30.05.2025, the Dr Shiv Mani was summoned who conducted the X-Ray but the X-Ray report related to the chest was not placed. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the supplementary affidavit is also filed by the counsel for the applicant and the medico legal examination of the injured person Brijesh is also annexued but no injury on the chest is shown. As the application is being given by the accused person only with the intention to linger on the trial, this fact was observed by the learned Court below. 8. Therefore, present petition is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the petition as well as other relevant material as the supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant annexing the injury report of Brijesh does not reveal any injury on the chest. 10. Therefore, the petition is misconceived and it is hereby dismissed. November 21, 2025 Anurag A482 No. 8744 of 2025 2 (Rajeev Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench