Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:103379 Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 21742 of 2025 Applicant :- Vijay Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kamal Singh, Sanjay Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Kamal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1 and perused the record. 2. The present application has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing impugned order dated 10.06.2025 passed by Additional Judge, Court No.01, Kaushambi in S.T. No.145 of 2012 (State vs. Vijay Yadav) arising out of Crime No.267 of 2011 under Sections 302, 394, 411 IPC, Police Station-Manjhanpur, District- Kaushambi, whereby application under Section 311 Cr.P.C./348 B.N.S.S. filed by the present applicant, has been rejected. 3. An FIR was lodged on 20.11.2011 by O.P. no.2 against the present applicant for committing offence under Sections 302, 394 IPC wherein it is alleged that father of informant/O.P. no.2 was shot dead by an unknown accused. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the applicant on 16.02.2012 under section 302, 394, 411 IPC and section 3/25 of Arms Act and the trial court has taken cognizance and the trial has proceeded. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after cognizance the trial of the case commenced and out of named 23 witnesses only six witnesses have been examined. He submitted that examination of more witnesses was required for just and proper decision of the trial case, so the applicant has moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on 04.06.2025 for producing some more witnesses for their deposition before the trial court. He further submitted that the application of the applicant has been mechanically rejected by the court below by impugned order dated 10.06.2025 without properly appreciating the circumstances of the case and without following the provisions of law. The impugned order is perverse, erroneous and unsustainable in the eyes of law. To buttress his argument, he has placed reliance on judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajaram Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar and another, (2013) 0 AIR (SC) 3081 as well as judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Madhusudan Shukla vs. State of U.P. and another, (2022) 0 Supreme (All) 661. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the application and contends that the trial of the case has been going on since 2012 and the application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. moved by the applicant is just an endeavour to delay the trial. He further submits that the Court below has rightly rejected the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order. 6. On perusal of impugned order dated 10.06.2025 it transpires that while rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. the trial court has categorically observed that the offences involved in the matter are serious in nature and the instant case is quite old matter and trial of the case needs to be concluded at the earliest, so finding no justifiable reason to entertain the said application, the court below has rejected the application. 7. I see no illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court and further during course of argument, nothing has been brought on record to show that the application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. preferred by the applicant before the trial court was a genuine application and the same was filed because there was need to examine those witnesses. Apparently, the endeavour of the applicant just seems to delay the trial of the case, which has been going on since 2012. I am of the view that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicant just to linger the trial of the case. I find no merit in the instant application. 8. The instant application is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 Manish Himwan Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad