Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:143792 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 28076 of 2025 Applicant :- Ajeet Alias Happu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Birendra Singh Khokher Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Birendra Singh Khokher, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The applicant, by means of this application has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash order dated 04.04.2025 passed in S.T. no. 20 of 2018 (State vs. Ajit @ Happu and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 63 of 2017 under Section 2/3 Gangster Act, PS- Baraut, District Baghpat passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/FTC/Special Judge/Gangster Act, Baghpat while allowing present application and recall the witness PW4, PW7 and PW8 for cross examination. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that applicant is in jail since 12.03.2018 and there was no one in the family of applicant do pursue the trial of aforesaid S.T. no. 20 of 2018. Applicant has not provided fee to his counsel hence his counsel before court concerned could not cross-examine PW4, PW7 and PW8 and learned trial court closed the opportunity of cross examination. When applicant came to know about this fact he preferred application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on dated 04.04.2025 before learned court concerned which has been rejected vide impugned order dated 04.04.2025 hence this petition has been filed seeking aforesaid prayer. 4. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer sought through the instant application. 5. Learned counsel for applicant placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in the case of G.R.Gulati Vs. State of U.P. & another, 2014 (3) JIC 729 (Alld), wherein paragraphs 6 and 9 it has been held as below: "6. .....There is a duty cast upon the court to arrive at the truth by all lawful means and one of such means is the examination of witnesses of its own accord when for certain obvious reasons either party is not prepared to call witnesses who are known to be in a position to speak important relevant facts. ... ... 9. .....The prompt decision of criminal case is to be commended and encouraged but in reaching at these results, the accused, who are charged with a serious offence, must not be stripped of his valuable right of a fair and impartial trial because it would be negation of concept of due process of law. Regardless of the merits of the case, the court has not only to look into the case of the prosecution but has also to keep in mind the defence version." 6. Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties and looking into the gravity of the offence for which the applicant has been charged and to balance the scale of justice, order dated 04.04.2025 passed in S.T. no. 20 of 2018 (State vs. Ajit @ Happu and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 63 of 2017 under Section 2/3 Gangster Act, PS- Baraut, District Baghpat passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/FTC/Special Judge/Gangster Act, Baghpat, is hereby quashed. Applicant be allowed only one date opportunity to cross- examine PW4, PW7 and PW8 and learned trial court will summon PW4, PW7 and PW8 for cross-examination on the date fixed and the witness will be cross-examined on the same day positively. 7. In view thereof, the instant application is partly allowed. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Shaswat Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad