ASHUTOSH PATHAK versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. R1: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH R2: SHIKHA PATHAK

ASHUTOSH PATHAK versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. R1: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH R2: SHIKHA PATHAK

The defence was afforded ample opportunity to produce and examine the summoned witness Vinay Kumar Pathak; the onus was on the defence to ensure his presence and examine him when granted last opportunity; the witness had been summoned as an independent witness on the petitioner's application and never gave evidence for the prosecution; the petitioner pursued successive Section 311 applications and adjournments amounting to dilatory tactics and abuse of process, therefore there was no infirmity in the Trial Court and High Court orders refusing further opportunity

Parties
Petitioner: Ashutosh Pathak; Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh; Respondent (informant): Shikha Pathak
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (criminal) No. 10852 of 2024 / Judgment
Outcome
Petition dismissed; special leave refused; impugned High Court order affirmed
Legal Topics
Section 311 Cr PC, Summoning of Witness, Closure of Opportunity to Examine Witness, Delay and Adjournment, Abuse of Process
Criminal Procedure Criminal Law Section 311 Cr PC Summoning of Witness Closure of Opportunity to Examine Witness Delay and Adjournment Abuse of Process

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashutosh Pathak

Petitioner

State of Uttar Pradesh

Respondent

Shikha Pathak

Respondent (informant)

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (criminal) No. 10852 of 2024 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Trial Court erred in partly allowing the Section 311 application and not summoning Kanak Lata Singh
  2. 2 Whether the Trial Court erred in closing the opportunity to examine the summoned witness Vinay Kumar Pathak and whether prosecution was obliged to examine him as he was in the prosecution witness list
  3. 3 Whether successive Section 311 applications and adjournments by the petitioner amounted to dilatory tactics and abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The defence was afforded ample opportunity to produce and examine the summoned witness Vinay Kumar Pathak; the onus was on the defence to ensure his presence and examine him when granted last opportunity; the witness had been summoned as an independent witness on the petitioner's application and never gave evidence for the prosecution; the petitioner pursued successive Section 311 applications and adjournments amounting to dilatory tactics and abuse of process, therefore there was no infirmity in the Trial Court and High Court orders refusing further opportunity

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed; special leave refused; impugned High Court order affirmed

Orders

  • Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10852 of 2024 dismissed
  • Impugned Order dated 03.07.2024 of the High Court affirmed