Nitin Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC2 Jun 2026C528/1153/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 311 Cr.P.C. recall of prosecution witness; closure of cross-examination upon counsel's sudden illness; right to cross-examine as fundamental facet of fair trial and natural justice; complaint case before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar; P.W.1 complainant; one final opportunity to complete cross-examination; Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1153 of 2026; High Court of Uttarakhand; Zahira Habibullah H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004) 4 SCC 158; Natasha Singh v. CBI (2013) 5 SCC 741; orders dated 26.08.2025 and 25.11.2025 set aside.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 26.08.2025 and 25.11.2025 of the learned trial Court set aside; applicant's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. allowed; trial Court directed to recall P.W.1 for completion of his cross-examination expeditiously, the applicant to seek no adjournment on the date fixed.

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			C528 No.1153 of 2026 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mrs. Neetu Singh and Mr. Vinod Chandra, Advocates for the applicant. Mrs. Pushpa Bhatt, Additional Advocate General and Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. Respondent no.2 instituted a complaint case against the applicant before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. During the course of trial, the examination-in-chief of P.W.1 (the complainant) was recorded and the matter was thereafter fixed for his cross- examination on 26.08.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant commenced the cross- examination of P.W.1 on the said date. However, after some cross-examination had been conducted, the proceedings were adjourned till post-lunch session. It is submitted that, during the intervening period, learned counsel for the applicant suddenly fell ill and was unable to appear before the Court after lunch. Consequently, an application seeking a short adjournment for completion of the cross- examination of P.W.1 was moved before the learned trial Court. Nevertheless, vide order dated 26.08.2025, the learned trial Court closed the applicant's opportunity to further cross- examine P.W.1. Thereafter, the applicant moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. before the Court below, praying for recall of P.W.1 and permission to complete his cross- examination. The said application was, however, rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar vide order dated 25.11.2025, primarily on the ground that the defence was causing delay in the proceedings and that the witness had travelled from another district for recording of his testimony. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has preferred the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that P.W.1 is the complainant himself and his

SL.
No.

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

C528 No.1153 of 2026
Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mrs. Neetu Singh and Mr. Vinod Chandra,
Advocates for the applicant.
Mrs. Pushpa Bhatt, Additional Advocate
General and Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. for the
State of Uttarakhand.
2.
Respondent no.2 instituted a complaint
case against the applicant before the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. During the
course of trial, the examination-in-chief of
P.W.1 (the complainant) was recorded and the
matter was thereafter fixed for his cross-
examination on 26.08.2025. Learned counsel
for
the
applicant
commenced
the
cross-
examination
of
P.W.1
on
the
said
date.
However, after some cross-examination had
been
conducted,
the
proceedings
were
adjourned till post-lunch session. It is submitted
that, during the intervening period, learned
counsel for the applicant suddenly fell ill and
was unable to appear before the Court after
lunch. Consequently, an application seeking a
short adjournment for completion of the cross-
examination of P.W.1 was moved before the
learned trial Court. Nevertheless, vide order
dated 26.08.2025, the learned trial Court closed
the applicant's opportunity to further cross-
examine
P.W.1.
Thereafter,
the
applicant
moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
before the Court below, praying for recall of
P.W.1 and permission to complete his cross-
examination.
The
said
application
was,
however, rejected by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate,
Haridwar
vide
order
dated
25.11.2025, primarily on the ground that the
defence was causing delay in the proceedings
and that the witness had travelled from another
district for recording of his testimony. Aggrieved
thereby, the applicant has preferred the present
Criminal Miscellaneous Application.
3.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits
that P.W.1 is the complainant himself and his

Nitin Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhawna Sharma and Anr. Vs State of Uttarakhand

Vipul Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sbfc Finance Ltd. Vs State of Uttarakhand

Tauheed Beg and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand

Himanshu Joshi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Satveer Singh Virok Vs State of Uttarakhand