SUPRABA @ SUPRABHA Vs. STATE OF UP AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicant seeking the quashing of order dated 01.7.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Muzaffar Nagar in S.T. No.246 of 2000 (State vs. Vikrant @ Vikky Tyagi and others) u/s 364 I.P.C., P.S.-Civil Lines, District-Muzaffar Nagar, whereby application moved on behalf of accused u/s 311 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for applicant.

(3.) The main submission raised by the counsel for applicant is that the impugned order, whereby the application moved u/s 311 Cr.P.C. seeking the summoning of witness namely Chandramani was rejected, does not contain reasons for the rejection and therefore is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Further submission is that the witness was named in the charge-sheet and his production would have helped the court to arrive at the ends of justice, and therefore, the decision of the court not to summon him is not a proper exercise of power.