RAMADHIN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This is an application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. to quash the orders dated 5.7.2005 and 31.1.2007 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Hamirpur in S.T. No. 106 of 2004, State v. Ramadhin and others, under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 304, I.P.C. police station Maudaha district Hamirpur.

(2.) THE facts relevant for disposal of this application are that the aforesaid sessions trial is pending against the applicants and statement of P.W. 1 Vimal Singh has been recorded in the above case. THE applicants moved an application before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Hamirpur, where the case is pending, that Ramjiawan, one of the prosecution witnesses in the above case, had moved an application before the Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur on 21.7.1999 alleging that the police had not properly investigated the case, the real culprits had not been named in the F.I.R., the correct description of the incident had also not been noted in the F.I.R., some innocent persons had been falsely implicated in the incident and names of some known and unknown culprits were intentionally not written in the report. This application was investigated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Maudaha Sri K. K. Singh ; and in connection with that inquiry, he recorded statements of several witnesses, and then he submitted a report to the Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur on 18.8.1999. It was prayed by the accused that copies of statements of those witnesses which were recorded by Sri K. K. Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Maudaha, and a copy of his report should be furnished to the accused for cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. THE application was rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, vide his order dated 5.7.2005. THEreafter another application to the same effect was again moved on 27.11.2006. This application was rejected by the Addl. Sessions Judge vide his order dated 31.1.2007 in which he also referred to the earlier order dated 5.7.2005, and held that in view of that order the present application was liable to be dismissed. Aggrieved with both these orders the present application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the aforesaid documents.