In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court considered a plea to quash the trial court's order rejecting a request to recall a witness. The Court upheld the trial court's discretion, finding the applicant had already extensively cross-examined the witness.
The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 91
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19844 of 2021
Applicant :- Ravi Shankar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jitenrda Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case.
By way of present application, applicant made prayer to quash the order dated 06.09.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Special Judge Gangster Act, by which the application of the applicant filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning the complainant/PW-1 has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is accused in the case and he moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon the opposite party no.2, the informant (PW-1), which was dismissed by the trial court vide impugned order dated 06.09.2021. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the order dated 06.09.2021 is illegal and without jurisdiction, trial court failed to consider the fact that re-examination of PW-1 (opposite party no.2) was necessary to arrive at the just decision of the case. He further submitted that in the application dated 06.09.2021, applicant specifically stated that the cross-examination conducted by the earlier counsel is not very clear in its term and number of facts could not be asked from PW-1, therefore, it was necessary to re-examine the PW-1. He further submitted that the application to recall the opposite party no.2 was moved by the applicant on 06.09.2021 and on same day, the trial court dismissed his application. This shows that the order impugned was passed by the trial court in haste manner and without application of mind.
Per contra, learned AGA submitted that the order dated 06.09.2021 is a reasoned order and there was absolutely no need to recall PW-1 as he earlier appeared before the Court concerned and counsel for the applicant already cross-examined him extensively. Learned AGA further submitted that witness cannot be recalled or re-examine under Section 311 Cr.P.C. only with the purpose to fill up the lacuna, therefore, present application is liable to be dismissed.
I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. The impugned order dated 06.09.2021 shows that earlier extensive cross-examination has been conducted by the applicant and there is specific observation of the trial court that the application to recall the opposite party no.2 has been moved only with intention to fill up the lacuna and to linger on the proceedings of the case. From the impugned order dated 06.09.2021 it also reflects that there is direction of earlier disposal of the case passed by this Court. The law in respect of summoning under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is settled that power to summon a person/witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should be very sparingly used and trial court should exercise its discretion only for the purpose if in view of the Court it appears that the summoning of that witness is must to arrive at the just decision of the case. In the instant matter, as there is no such finding has been recorded by the trial court while deciding the application of the applicant and further earlier counsel of the applicant had already extensively cross-examined the opposite party no.2, therefore, in my considered view there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 06.09.2021.
Accordingly, the present application is dismissed .
Order Date :- 13.5.2022 AK Pandey
Digitally signed by ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2022.05.14 11:56:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court ought to quash the trial court's order rejecting the applicant's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall the complainant.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ravi Shankar
State of U.P.
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
