Court No. - 69

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2548 of 2023

Applicant :- Abhishek Kumar

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Srivastava,Ch. Dil Nisar

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

List revised.

Heard Shri Choudhary Dilnisar, learned counsel for the

applicant, Sri Raj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the State

and perused the material brought on record.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been

filed by the applicant-Abhishek Kumar with the prayer to set-

aside the impugned order dated 28.11.2022 and 12.12.2022 in

Case No.418 of 2016 (Smt. Shalu @ Shalini Vs. Abhishesh

Kumar) pending in the court of Addl. Principal Judge,

Saharanpur and further with the prayer to direct the court below

to allow the applicant counsel to re-examine P.W.1 as per U/S

311 Cr.P.C.

The facts of the present case are that the applicant is the

husband of opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 filed an

application dated 15.6.2016 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before

the concerned family court claiming maintenance from the

applicant for her and her two minor children. Even an

application for interim maintenance was also filed. The matter

proceeded in which the statement of the opposite party

no.2/wife was recorded as P.W.1 and Rajpal Singh was

examined as P.W.2. Rajpal Singh, the father of opposite party

no.2 filed an application before the concerned trial court on

13.9.2019 with the prayer to appoint him guardian of two minor

children. Subsequently the said application was withdrawn by

him. The evidence of P.W.1/opposite party no.2 was recorded.

On 9.11.2022, the applicant filed certain documents to

demonstrate that the opposite party no.2 has remarried. He filed

an application dated 28.11.2022 with the prayer that the

opposite party no.2 be recalled for further cross-examination.

He had filed an application for summoning the employee of the

Facebook for verification of the photographs of opposite party

no.2 to substantiate her remarriage. The court on the expenses

of the applicant summoned the employee of the Facebook who

stated that URL Code of the account is needed to access the

same. An application dated 28.11.2022 under Section 311

Cr.P.C. for summoning the opposite party no.2 for further cross-

examination was rejected vide order dated 28.11.2022 by the

trial court. The application of the applicant for directing the

opposite party no.2 to provide the URL Code of Facebook

Account also stood rejected vide order dated 12.12.2022. The

present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C is thus filed before this

Court.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that re-summoning of

opposite party no.2 for re-cross-examination is vital and

important for the facts of the present case as she needs to be re-

cross-examined with regards to the factum of her second

marriage. Even the order dated 12.12.2022 needs to be set-aside

and direction needs to be given to the trial court to take URL

Code of Facebook Account of opposite party no.2 which would

be needed to see the photographs to substantiate her second

marriage. The orders of the trial court are bad in the eyes of law.

It is argued that in the event, the said application is not allowed,

the applicant would be seriously prejudiced. As such a case is

made out for appropriate directions to the trial court and the

same be issued.

Per contra, learned counsel for the state opposed the prayer for

quashing and argued that the orders are speaking orders without

any irregularity or illegality. The present petition is devoid of

merit and is liable to be dismissed.

After having heard learned counsel for both the parties and

perusing the records, it is evident that the opposite party no.2

was examined before the trial court as P.W.1 and her entire

statement has been recorded. There is no reason for her re-

summoning for further cross-examination. Further w