SHIVAM VISHNOIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 14475 of 2026

Shivam Vishnoi
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Aradhana Singh, Ruchi Verma, Siya
                                Ram Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Girish Kumar Gupta

Court No. - 81
                    HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Girish Kumar Gupta,
learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed for
quashing the impugned order dated 31.3.2026 passed by learned Sessions
Judge, Ramabari Nagar, (Kanpur Dehat) in Sessions Trial No.34 of 2019
(State of U.P. Vs. Shivam Vishnoi) arising out of Crime No.113/2018
under Sections 363, 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Rajpur, District
Kanpur Dehat.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to prior enmity
regarding ancestral property. It is contended that the applicant neither
enticed away the victim (deceased) nor committed his murder. A First
Information Report, being Case Crime No. 113 of 2018, under Section
363 I.P.C., was lodged by opposite party No. 2. It is further submitted that
the applicant is not named in the said F.I.R., and his name surfaced during
the course of investigation. After completion of the investigation, the
Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet against the applicant under
Sections 302, 363, and 201 I.P.C. During the trial, charges were duly
framed against the accused, and the prosecution examined nine witnesses.
It is further submitted that the applicant came to know that opposite party
No. 2 had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on
26.11.2018, alleging that his son had been kidnapped by Vinod Kumar,
                                                        NA528 No. 14475 of 2026
                                2


Shivam, Anoop Rathore and Ashish Kumar and had also shown his
daughter as a witness therein. The applicant thereafter filed an application
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of P.W.-1 (Sunil Kumar
Vishnoi) and P.W.-8 (Naveen Kumar Singh, I.O.) for further cross-
examination however, the said application was rejected by the learned
trial court. It is argued that the factum of filing of the application under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by opposite party No. 2 is highly material and
could only be properly elucidated by putting specific questions to P.W.-1
and P.W.-8. However, the learned Sessions Judge, without properly
appreciating the relevance of the said aspect, rejected the application in a
mechanical manner and he is very adamant to decide the case in a very
hasty manner. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A., as well as learned counsel for opposite
party No. 2, vehemently opposed the prayer and contended that the
learned trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the
impugned order. It is submitted that the examination-in-chief of P.W.-1
was recorded on 23.06.2022, and he was duly cross-examined on
06.07.2022. Further, the examination-in-chief of P.W.-8 was recorded on
09.05.2024, and he was also cross-examined at length but the applicant
moved an application seeking adjournment, which was rejected by the
trial court. The applicant did not challenge the said order at any stage. It is
further contended that the present application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
has been filed at a belated stage solely with the intention to delay the
proceedings of the case. Therefore, the present application is liable to be
dismissed.

5. As per the facts of the present case, it transpires that a First Information
Report, being Case Crime No. 0113 of 2018, under Section 363 I.P.C.,
was lodged by opposite party No. 2 against unknown person. After
completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the
applicant. Thereafter, the learned trial court framed charges against the
applicant. The prosecution examined nine witnesses, and presently the
case is pending at the stage of final arguments. The applicant moved an
application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. before the trial court seeking recall
of P.W.-1 (Sunil Kumar Vishnoi) and P.W.-8 (Naveen Kumar Singh,
I.O.) for further cross-examination.
                                                                                         NA528 No. 14475 of 2026
                                                                   3


                                    6. On examination-in-chief of P.W.-1 was recorded on 23.06.2022.
                                    Thereafter, the same was adjourned to another Bench. On 23.6.2022 the
                                    P.W.-1 was cross examined. Thereafter on 06.07.2022 further cross
                                    examination of this witness was recorded. Similarly, the examination-in-
                                    chief of P.W.-8 was recorded on 09.05.2024. During his cross-
                                    examination, the applicant sought adjournment however, the same was
                                    rejected by the trial court. The learned trial court, while passing the
                                    impugned order, has assigned cogent and detailed reasons. The applicant
                                    has failed to disclose any justifiable ground for recalling P.W.-1 and
                                    P.W.-8. The facts and circumstances of the case indicate that the
                                    application has been moved only with the intent to delay the trial.

                                    7. Upon consideration of the material available on record, this Court finds
                                    that the learned trial court has proceeded in accordance with law, this
                                    Court does not find any illegality or perversity in impugned
                                    order. Therefore, the prayer for setting aside the same is hereby refused.

                                    8. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.



                                                                                        (Chawan Prakash,J.)
                                    April 9, 2026
                                    Md Faisal




Digitally signed by :-
MOHD FAISAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad