Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Smt. Jag Devi @ Jagwati & Another v. State Of U.P. - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 11739 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 10286 (30 May 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).



Court No. 1


Criminal Misc. application No. 11739 of 2007

Smt. Jag Devi and another Vs. St********ate of U.P.

Hon'ble R.K. Rastogi, J.

This is an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuing direction to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur to record the statement of applicant no. 1 under section 164 Cr.P.C. in case no. 117 of 2007,(State Vs. Radhey Shyam) and for issuing direction to him to decide the aforesaid case expeditiously.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and perused the papers on record.

It is to be seen that as laid down in the Hon'ble Apex Court it is the right of the Investigating Officer to get the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. during investigation. When the Investigating Officer has not made any such prayer then no other party can make a prayer for recording statement of any person under section 164 Cr.P.C.  It is also to be seen that statements of witnesses under section 164 Cr.P.C. are recorded during investigation only. In the present case, the charge sheet has already been submitted under sections 371 and 366 I.P.C.,and the cognizance has also been taken by the court. So, now the stage of recording statements under section 164 Cr.P.C. has come to an end. The applicant no 1 who has been described as Prosecution Witness no. 2 in the list of witnesses on the back of the charge sheet may give her statement before the Court whenever she is summoned for that purpose.

As regards, the prayer for speedy trial of  the case it is to be seen that the applicants have not filed any copy of the order sheet of the case to show as to who is responsible for delay in trial of the case.  The charge sheet has been submitted against Radhey Shyam applicant no. 2.  It is not clear whether Radhey Shyam has put in appearance in the aforesaid case so far or not.  

It appears from the affidavit filed in support of the present application that petitioner no. 1 has married petitioner no. 2.  

In these circumstances, petitioner no. 2 may appear before the court concerned at an early date, and after his appearance, the court shall hear and dispose of the case expeditiously.  

The application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of finally with the above observations.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.