Allahabad High Court
/9915/2025 of AMIT KUMAR MISHRA @ AMIT KUMAR Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. U.P. LKO. AND ANOTHER on 12 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9915 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 proceedings arising out of Case Crime
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9915 of 2025
Court No. - 14
HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
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 proceedings arising out of Case Crime No.0246 of 2020 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406, 494 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Katra Bazar, District - Gonda.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the date fixed counsel for the applicant before the court below was busy in another court, therefore, he could not appear for cross examine the witness, as a result, opportunity to cross examine P.W.4 was closed by the learned court below. He further submits that application for recall of P.W.4 for cross examination was filed, which was allowed vide order dated 18.2.2025 with the cost of Rs.5,000/-, thereafter, after one month, an application was filed for modification of the amount of cost, which was rejected by the court below on 4.9.2025. He also submits that cost imposed by the court below was disproportionate as the witness, P.W.4 is a local resident of Gonda, therefore, impugned order dated 4.9.2025 is liable to be set aside.
4. Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the applicant and submits that there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned court Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dinesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Amit Kumar Mishra @ Amit Kumar .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s)
below. He also submits that there is a clear bar under Section 362 of Cr.P.C. for modification of the order in criminal matters, therefore, 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 application for recall of witness was allowed on 18.2.2025 with the cost of Rs.5,000/- and after one month on 18.3.2025, application was filed for modification of order dated 18.2.2025, which was rejected by the court below with the observation that same is not maintainable as the provision under Section 362 Cr.P.C. clearly prohibits any modification in the order. In such circumstances, there is no illegality in the impugned order, accordingly, the present application is misconceived and same is hereby dismissed.
6. The Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. December 12, 2025 GauraV/- A482 No. 9915 of 2025 2 (Rajeev Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench