Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:57289 Court No. - 70 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 539 of 2025 Applicant :- Ajay Pal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Narayan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Heard Mr. Hari Narayan Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1. 2. Perused the record. 3. Applicant-Ajay Pal who is a charge sheeted accused and facing trial before Court below, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and quash the impugned order dated 09.12.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Court No.1 Sant Kabir Nagar in Session Case No. 666 of 2023 (State Vs. Vijay Pal and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 421 of 2023 u/s 302, 323, 352, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 09.12.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Court No.1 Sant Kabir Nagar in Session Case No. 666 of 2023 (State Vs. Vijay Pal and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 421 of 2023 u/s 302, 323, 352, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar and further be pleased to direct the learned trial court to recall the witness P.W.1/Smt. Sunita Devi for reexamination on the relevant point, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury." 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that during pendency of aforementioned Sessions Trial applicant filed an application dated 27.12.2024 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of the first informant Smt. Sunita. However, the said application has been erroneously rejected by Court below vide impugned order dated 27.12.2024. 5. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection by submitting that perusal of the application dated 27.11.2024 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by accused-applicant before Court below will go to show that the specific questions proposed to be put to the witnesses have not been mentioned therein. Since, the proposed questions have not been mentioned in the application, therefore there is no averment regarding the relevancy of the same. In view of above, the learned A.G.A. submits that since proposed questions have not mentioned in the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. nor the relevancy of the said questions has been detailed, therefore, the veracity of application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., or the bona fide of the accused applicant in filing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be judged in the light of parameters laid down by the Apex Court for judging the bona fide of the applicant in filing an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in Raja Ram Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and Another (2013) 14 SCC 461. As such, no illegality has been committed by Court below in rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by accused applicant. Consequently, the present application is liable to be dismissed. 5. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objection raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application is not only borne out from the record but furthermore the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record. In view of above, no good ground exists to entertain the present application. 7. As a result, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed. 8. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 16.4.2025 Imtiyaz Digitally signed by :- IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad