NEERAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This is an application under Section 482, Cr. P.C., for quashing the impugned order dated 11.4.2008 (Annexure-8) passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 3, Mainpuri in S.T. No. 203/2000, State v. Neeraj Kumar and others.

(2.) SINCE the point involved in this case is legal one, I have, with the consent of the parties, heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A., for the State, and I am deciding it on merits at this stage of admission.

(3.) IT is to be seen that Dr. P. K. Pathak is a Government Doctor. He is not a private person and he is to be summoned through the C.M.O., Mainpuri and without permission of his immediate boss, he cannot appear in the Court for his statement. The applicants could not bring Dr. P. K. Pathak for his statement before the Court, and it was for the trial court to summon the Doctor through the C.M.O., Mainpuri for recording his statement before the Court, and so it was not justified in closing the defence evidence on the ground that it was the duty of the accused applicants to produce him in the Court. As regards the witness Vipin, who is son of the complainant, the Court has observed that he was a private person and so the accused should have produced him as a witness and there was no necessity to summon him through Court. No doubt, he is a private person but it is to be seen that he is son of the informant, the adversary of the accused, and so it could not be possible for the accused persons to bring Vipin to the Court personally. He was also to be summoned through the Court and if he fails to appear before the Court after service of summons, coercive process can be issued against him, and the Court was not justified in rejecting the prayer for summoning Vipin on the ground that he is a private person and so he should have been produced by the applicants.