High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:140870 Court No. - 91 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23229 of 2023 Applicant :- Nitesh Katiyar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Chandra Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Ramesh Chandra Pal, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-respondents. 2. The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking to quash the order dated 14.06.2023 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in S.T. No. 236 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 758 of 2019, under Section 307 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Farrukhabad, District Farrukhabad, whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. moved by the applicant has been rejected. 3. While considering the application filed by the accused-applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. the learned trial court has taken notice of the fact that the case was at the stage of final arguments and matter has already been expedited by the High Court. The trial court on the basis of the aforestated facts has taken a view that application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. at this advanced stage of proceedings was only with a view to cause delay in disposal of the case. The application under section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of the witness was accordingly rejected. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that the power to summon witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is purely discretionary and in the present case the trial being at the stage of final arguments, the application filed by the applicant/informant could not be said to be bona fide and the court below having exercised its discretionary jurisdiction in the matter no interference was called for. 5. The nature and scope of the power of the court to summon, examine, recall and re-examine any witness in the context of Section 311 Cr.P.C. (and also the corresponding provision as contained in Section 540 of the Old Code of 1898) was subject matter of consideration in Mohanlal Shamji Soni v Union of India and another, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 271 and it was held that the power in this regard is in the widest terms exercisable at any stage so long as the court is in seisin of the proceeding as may be considered essential for a just decision of the case. 6. In U.T. of Dadra and Nagar Haveli v Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan, (2006) 7 SCC 529 while considering the power of the court to summon material witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C., it was opined that the said power can be exercised only with the object of finding out the truth or obtaining proper proof of facts which may lead to a just and correct decision. 7. The nature, scope and object of Section 311 Cr.P.C. came to be extensively discussed in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) and another v State of Gujarat and others; (2006) 3 SCC 374, and a view was taken that the underlying object of the provision is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side.