Ajay @ Ajay Kumar Yadav v. Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another .....Opposite Party(s)

08.08.2025, passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Raibareli (in short 'trial court'), in S.T. No. 187/2019 ( State Vs. Ajay Kumar and others) arising out of FIR/Crime No. 0150/2019, under sections 498A/304B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Lalganj, District Raibareli.

4. The impugned order dated 08.08.2025 has been passed on an application dated 01.08.2025 preferred by the accused/applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. (94क) praying therein to recall the P.W.1/Rajesh Kumar (brother of the deceased).

5. Vide impugned order dated 08.08.2025 the aforesaid application has been rejected.

6. The facts which can be deduced from the pleadings and material available on record are to the effect that marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the revisionist Ajay alias Ajay Kumar Yadav on 24.04.2016 according to the Hindu rites and rituals and the deceased died within seven years of marriage on 22.03.2019, which was unnatural death.

7. It is also relevant to indicate that the information of death (फौती सूचना) was given by the informant Rajesh Kumar/P.W.1 and based upon the same inquest was carried out and inquest report was prepared. 2 CRLR No. 975 of 2025

8. The fact that information of death (फौती सूचना) was given by the Rajesh Kumar/P.W.1, is apparent from the statement of Rajesh Kumar annexed as Annexure No.3 recorded before the trial court on 21.09.2021 and concluded on 06.10.2021.

9. After the aforesaid information the FIR No. 0150 was lodged at Police Station- Lalganj, District-Raibareli, under Sections 498A/304B I.P.C and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, on 24.03.2019.

10. From the statement of Rajesh Kumar annexed as Annexure No.3, it is evident that he was duly cross examined by the defence.

11. From the record it is also apparent that trial is now at the stage of recording the statement of accused in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at this stage an application dated 01.08.2025 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. (94क) was preferred by the defence . Relevant portion of application dated 01.08.2025 reads as under:- "िनवेदन है िक उपरो्व स्ऴ परी्षण में वादी मुकदमा राजेश कु मार को अिभयोजन सा्षी सं० 1 के रूप में परीि्षत िकया गया है िजसके ्षारा तहरीर ्ऺदशर् क 1 थाने में देने के पूवर् मृतका सोनी देवी की मृत्यु के सम्बन्ध में एक फौती सूचना िलिखत तहरीर के रूप में थाने पर दी गयी थी िजसके आधार पर मृतका का पंचनामें की कायर्वाही की गयी थी वादी ्षारा दी गयी फौती सूचना को अिभयोजन सा्षी सं० 1 से ्ऺितपृच्छा के दौरान सािबत कराने से सहवन रह गया है इसिलये उपरो्व फौती सूचना को उपरो्व सा्षी से सािबत कराये जाने हेतु पुनः परीि्षत करना आवश्यक है। अतः ्शीमान जी से िनवेदन है िक न्यायिहत में मुकदमें के सम्यक् िनणर्य हेतु अिभयोजन सा्षी सं० 1 राजेश कु मार धारा 311दं०्ऺ०सं० के तहत पुनः परी्षा हेतु तलब करने की कृ पा करें।"

12. The trial Court upon due consideration rejected the application for recalling of P.W.1 for further cross-examination, vide impugned order dated 08.08.2025. Relevant portion of the order dated 08.08.2025 is extracted hereinunder:- "उभयप्षों को सुना एवं प्ऴावली का सम्यक पिरशीलन िकया। प्ऴावली के पिरशीलन से स्प्ि है िक वादी मुकदमा राजेश कु मार ्षारा दी गयी फौती सूचना का उल्लेख प्ऴावली पर उपलब्ध जी०डी० में है एवं उ्व तथ्य के आधार पर मृतका के शव का पंचनामा िकये जाने का उल्लेख पंचनामें में है। बचाव प्ष ्षारा वादी मुकदमा को बतौर अिभयोजन सा्षी सं० 1 परीि्षत िकये जाने पर ्ऺितपरी्षा में उ्व सा्षी से इस िबन्दु पर पृच्छा भी की गयी है िजसमें उसने यह स्वीकार िकया है िक वह घटना के सम्बंध में िदनांक 24.03.2019 को सुबह करीब 3.00 बजे थाना लालगंज गया था। जहाँ पर िलिखत रूप से मृतका सोनी की मृत्यु के सम्बंध में सूचना दी थी। सा्षी ने उसके ्षारा दी गयी सूचना को भी विणत िकया है। उ्व के सम्बंध में बचावप्ष ्षारा उ्व सा्षी से पृच्छा की जा चुकी है। प्ऴावली पर फौती सूचना उपलब्ध नहीं है। वादी मुकदमा ्षारा दी गयी सूचना के सम्बंध में बचावप्ष ्षारा अिभयोजन सा्षी सं० 6 जो मामले में िववेचक है, से भी ्ऺितपरी्षा की जा चुकी है। प्ऴावली में अिभयोजन साष्य पूणर् हो चुकी है एवं प्ऴावली बयान अन्तगर्त धारा 313 दं०्ऺ०सं० िनयत वल रही है। इस स्तर पर अिभयु्व ्षारा उ्व ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ ्ऺस्तुत िकया गया है। उपरो्व िव्शेषण के आधार पर ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ स्वीकार िकये जाने का कोई युि्व-यु्व आधार दिशत नहीं है। अतः ्ऺाथर्ना पत् िनरस्त िकये जाने योग्य है। आदेश ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ 94क अं०धारा 311 दं०्ऺ०सं० िनरस्त िकया जाता है। प्ऴावली वास्ते 313 दं०्ऺ०सं० िदनांक 22.08.2025 को पेश हो।"

13. In the aforesaid background of the case, present revision has been filed.

14. Learned counsel for the revisionist says that as per settled principle of law the application ought to have been allowed by the trial Court and the order impugned is 3 CRLR No. 975 of 2025 against the principle settled in this regard as also the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in regard to expression 'Fair Trial'. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgment dated 30.07.2008 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Godrej Pacific Tech. Ltd. vs. Computer Joint India Ltd. reported in 2008 (11) SCC

108. As such, interference of this Court is required in the matter.

15. Learned AGA opposed the present revision. He stated that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved with sole intention to delay the trial, which is impermissible and in this view of the matter, the application has rightly been rejected by the trial Court. Prayer is to affirm the impugned order and dismiss the revision.

16. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

17. Considered the aforesaid facts and the observations made by the trial Court in the order dated 08.08.2025 and the principles related to recall of witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case(s) of Mohd. Khalid Versus State of West Bengal (2002) 7 SCC 334, Hanuman Prasad (Supra), Natasha Singh vs. CBI, (2013) 5 SCC 741 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 828 : 2013 SCC OnLine SC 444, State of Haryana vs. Ram Mehar and others; (2016) 8 SCC 762, Swapan Kumar Chatterjee vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2019) 14 SCC 328; Varsha Garg vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 986 and as also by this Court in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 274 of 2022 (Ram Nayak Singh vs. State of U.P. & Another).

18. It is well settled by catena of decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with the care, caution and circumspection and only for strong and valid reasons. The recall of a witness already examined should not be a matter of course and discretion given to the court in this regard has to be exercised judicially to prevent failure of justice. The object of the provision as a whole is to do justice not only from the point of view of the accused and the prosecution but also from the point of view of an orderly society.

19. The Court is fully conscious of the position that after all the trial is basically for the prisoners/accused and the Court should afford an opportunity to them in the fairest manner possible. At the same time, the Court should bear in mind that fair trial entails the interest of the accused, the victim and the society and, therefore, the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the persons concerned, must be ensured being a constitutional goal, as well as a human right. Recalling of witnesses has to be applied on the basis of judicially established and accepted principles.

20. In the facts of the case it would be apt to refer the observations made in the judgment(s) passed in the case of Mohd. Khalid (Supra) and Ram Mehar (Supra).

21. In the case of Mohd. Khalid (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- 4 CRLR No. 975 of 2025 "Before parting with the case, we may point out that the Designated Court deferred the cross- examination of the witnesses for a long time. That is a feature which is being noticed in many cases. Unnecessary adjournments give a scope for a grievance that the accused persons get a time to get over the witnesses. Whatever be the truth in this allegation, the fact remains that such adjournments lack the spirit of Section 309 of the Code. When a witness is available and his examination-in- chief is over, unless compelling reasons arc there, the Trial Court should not adjourn the matter on the mere asking. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh and others (2001) 4 SCC 667 and N.G. Dastane v. Shrikant Shivde (2001) 6 SCC 135. In the case of State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh and others (2001) 4 SCC 667, this Court deprecated the practice of Courts adjourning cases without examination of witnesses when they are in attendance with the following observations:- "9. We make it abundantly clear that if a witness is present in Court he must be examined on that day. The Court must know that most of the witnesses could attend the Court only at heavy cost to them, after keeping aside their own avocation. Certainly they incur suffering and loss of income. The meagre amount of bhatta (allowance) which a witness may be paid by the Court is generally a poor solace for the financial loss incurred by him. It is a said plight in the Trial Courts that witnesses who are called through summons or other processes stand at a doorstep from morning till evening only to be told at the end of the day that the case is adjourned to another day. This primitive practice must be reformed by every one provided the presiding officer concerned has a commitment towards duty. No sadistic pleasure, in seeing how other persons summoned by him as witnesses are standard on account of the dimension of his judicial powers, can be a persuading factor for granting such adjournments lavishly, that too in a casual manner."

22. In the case of Ram Mehar (Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- "23. In Bablu Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and another, (2015) 8 SCC 787 the Court referred to the authorities in Sidhartha Vashisht alias Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC, Rattiram and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 4 SCC 516, J. Jayalalithaa and others v. State of Karnataka and others (2014) 2 SCC 401, State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy (1999) 8 SCC 715 and other decisions and came to hold that keeping in view the concept of fair trial, the obligation of the prosecution, the interest of the community and the duty of the court, it can irrefragably be stated that the court cannot be a silent spectator or a mute observer when it presides over a trial. It is the duty of the court to see that neither the prosecution nor the accused play truancy with the criminal trial or corrode the sanctity of the proceeding. They cannot expropriate or hijack the community interest by conducting themselves in such a manner as a consequence of which the trial becomes a farcical one. It has been further stated that the law does not countenance a "mock trial". It is a serious concern of society. Every member of the collective has an inherent interest in such a trial. No one can be allowed to create a dent in the same. The court is duty-bound to see that neither the prosecution nor the defence takes unnecessary adjournments and take the trial under their control. We may note with profit though the context was different, yet the message is writ large. The message is - all kinds of individual notions of fair trial have no room"." "38. At this juncture, we think it apt to state that the exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be sought to be invoked either by the prosecution or by the accused persons or by the Court itself. The High Court has been moved by the ground that the accused persons are in the custody and the concept of speedy trial is not nullified and no prejudice is caused, and, therefore, the principle of magnanimity should apply. Suffice it to say, a criminal trial does not singularly centres around the accused. In it there is involvement of the prosecution, the victim and the victim represents the collective. The cry of the collective may not be uttered in decibels which is physically audible in the court premises, but the Court has to remain sensitive to such silent cries and the agonies, for the society seeks justice. Therefore, a balance has to be struck. We have already explained the use of the words "magnanimous approach" and how it should be understood. Regard being had to the concept of balance, and weighing the factual score on the scale of balance, we are of the convinced opinion that the High Court has fallen into absolute error in axing the order passed by the learned trial Judge. If we allow ourselves to say, when the concept of fair trial is limitlessly stretched, having no boundaries, the orders like the present one may fall in the arena of sanctuary of errors. Hence, we reiterate the necessity of doctrine of 5 CRLR No. 975 of 2025 balance".

23. Having considered the aforesaid, this Court finds that application was moved with sole intention to delay the trial which has not been concluded despite delay of about 4 years and the process adopted by the defence is nothing, but an abuse of process of law. It is for the following reason(s):- (i) Specific allegations against the applicant were levelled under Sections 498A/304B I.P.C and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, in the FIR lodged on 24.03.2019; (ii) Before the trial court the statement of P.W.1/Rajesh Kumar was recorded on

21.09.2021 and concluded on 06.10.2021; (iii) After about four years the applicant moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for further cross-examination of PW-1, who has already been cross examined on the issue related to information of death (फौती सूचना) and the same is evident from the following portion of the statement of P.W.1:- "मैं इस घटना के संबंध में िदनांक 24/03/19 को सुबह करीब 3 बजे थाना लालगंज गया था, मेरे साथ मेरे दादा रामनरेश व मेरे चाचा रामकरन व रंजीत भी गये थे। मैने थाना लालगंज में िलिखत रूप से मृतका सोनी की मृत्यु के संबंध में यह सूचना िदया था िक "्ऺाथर् को राि्ऴ 11 बजकर 50 िमनट पर सोनी देवी बहन के यहाँ से फोन आया िक आपकी बहन ने फाँसी लगा िलया है इस सूचना पर मैं वहाँ पहुंचा मेरी बहन फाँसी लटकी हुयी है, अतः हम लोग सूचना देने के िलये आये हैं"। यह सूचना जब हम थाने देने गये थे तब करीब एक घंटा थाने पर रूके थे। यह सूचना देने व दजर् होने के प्ाात हम सभी लोग वापस अपनी बहन की ससुराल घटनास्थल गये थे। हम लोगों के घटनास्थल पर पहली बार पहुंचने के समय जो पुिलस मौके पर मौजूद थी उसकी सूचना मेरे बहनोई मुिल्जम अजय ्षारा पुिलस को दी गयी थी और उन्हीं की सूचना पर पुिलस घटनास्थल पर आयी थी। मैने या मेरे पिरवार के साथ गये िकसी ्िि्व ने पहली बार घटनास्थल पर पहुंचने पर मौके पर मौजूद पुिलसवालों को मुिल्जमान के िखलाफ दहेज भोगने या ्ऺतािड़त करने अथवा उसे मार डालने का कोई ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ नहीं िदया था। िदनांक 24/03/2019 को सुबह जब 3 बजे मैं थाना लालगंज गया था और वहाँ पर मैंने जो ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ बहन की मृत्यु के संबंध में िदया था उसमें भी मैंने मुिल्जमान ्षारा बहन सोनी से दहेज में कोई मांग करने, दहेज के िलये उसे ्ऺतािड़त करने व दहेज के िलये उसे मार डालने का कोई आरोप नहीं लगाया था।" (iv) The application U/s 311 Cr.P.C. is completely vague as is evident from the application annexed as Annexure No.4 to the present revision.

24. For the aforesaid, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 08.08.2025. The instant revision is hereby dismissed. Cost made easy. September 3, 2025 Jyoti/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

08.08.2025, passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Raibareli (in short 'trial court'), in S.T. No. 187/2019 ( State Vs. Ajay Kumar and others) arising out of FIR/Crime No. 0150/2019, under sections 498A/304B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Lalganj, District Raibareli.

4. The impugned order dated 08.08.2025 has been passed on an application dated 01.08.2025 preferred by the accused/applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. (94क) praying therein to recall the P.W.1/Rajesh Kumar (brother of the deceased).

5. Vide impugned order dated 08.08.2025 the aforesaid application has been rejected.

6. The facts which can be deduced from the pleadings and material available on record are to the effect that marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the revisionist Ajay alias Ajay Kumar Yadav on 24.04.2016 according to the Hindu rites and rituals and the deceased died within seven years of marriage on 22.03.2019, which was unnatural death.

7. It is also relevant to indicate that the information of death (फौती सूचना) was given by the informant Rajesh Kumar/P.W.1 and based upon the same inquest was carried out and inquest report was prepared. 2 CRLR No. 975 of 2025

8. The fact that information of death (फौती सूचना) was given by the Rajesh Kumar/P.W.1, is apparent from the statement of Rajesh Kumar annexed as Annexure No.3 recorded before the trial court on 21.09.2021 and concluded on 06.10.2021.

9. After the aforesaid information the FIR No. 0150 was lodged at Police Station- Lalganj, District-Raibareli, under Sections 498A/304B I.P.C and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, on 24.03.2019.

10. From the statement of Rajesh Kumar annexed as Annexure No.3, it is evident that he was duly cross examined by the defence.

11. From the record it is also apparent that trial is now at the stage of recording the statement of accused in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at this stage an application dated 01.08.2025 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. (94क) was preferred by the defence . Relevant portion of application dated 01.08.2025 reads as under:- "िनवेदन है िक उपरो्व स्ऴ परी्षण में वादी मुकदमा राजेश कु मार को अिभयोजन सा्षी सं० 1 के रूप में परीि्षत िकया गया है िजसके ्षारा तहरीर ्ऺदशर् क 1 थाने में देने के पूवर् मृतका सोनी देवी की मृत्यु के सम्बन्ध में एक फौती सूचना िलिखत तहरीर के रूप में थाने पर दी गयी थी िजसके आधार पर मृतका का पंचनामें की कायर्वाही की गयी थी वादी ्षारा दी गयी फौती सूचना को अिभयोजन सा्षी सं० 1 से ्ऺितपृच्छा के दौरान सािबत कराने से सहवन रह गया है इसिलये उपरो्व फौती सूचना को उपरो्व सा्षी से सािबत कराये जाने हेतु पुनः परीि्षत करना आवश्यक है। अतः ्शीमान जी से िनवेदन है िक न्यायिहत में मुकदमें के सम्यक् िनणर्य हेतु अिभयोजन सा्षी सं० 1 राजेश कु मार धारा 311दं०्ऺ०सं० के तहत पुनः परी्षा हेतु तलब करने की कृ पा करें।"

12. The trial Court upon due consideration rejected the application for recalling of P.W.1 for further cross-examination, vide impugned order dated 08.08.2025. Relevant portion of the order dated 08.08.2025 is extracted hereinunder:- "उभयप्षों को सुना एवं प्ऴावली का सम्यक पिरशीलन िकया। प्ऴावली के पिरशीलन से स्प्ि है िक वादी मुकदमा राजेश कु मार ्षारा दी गयी फौती सूचना का उल्लेख प्ऴावली पर उपलब्ध जी०डी० में है एवं उ्व तथ्य के आधार पर मृतका के शव का पंचनामा िकये जाने का उल्लेख पंचनामें में है। बचाव प्ष ्षारा वादी मुकदमा को बतौर अिभयोजन सा्षी सं० 1 परीि्षत िकये जाने पर ्ऺितपरी्षा में उ्व सा्षी से इस िबन्दु पर पृच्छा भी की गयी है िजसमें उसने यह स्वीकार िकया है िक वह घटना के सम्बंध में िदनांक 24.03.2019 को सुबह करीब 3.00 बजे थाना लालगंज गया था। जहाँ पर िलिखत रूप से मृतका सोनी की मृत्यु के सम्बंध में सूचना दी थी। सा्षी ने उसके ्षारा दी गयी सूचना को भी विणत िकया है। उ्व के सम्बंध में बचावप्ष ्षारा उ्व सा्षी से पृच्छा की जा चुकी है। प्ऴावली पर फौती सूचना उपलब्ध नहीं है। वादी मुकदमा ्षारा दी गयी सूचना के सम्बंध में बचावप्ष ्षारा अिभयोजन सा्षी सं० 6 जो मामले में िववेचक है, से भी ्ऺितपरी्षा की जा चुकी है। प्ऴावली में अिभयोजन साष्य पूणर् हो चुकी है एवं प्ऴावली बयान अन्तगर्त धारा 313 दं०्ऺ०सं० िनयत वल रही है। इस स्तर पर अिभयु्व ्षारा उ्व ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ ्ऺस्तुत िकया गया है। उपरो्व िव्शेषण के आधार पर ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ स्वीकार िकये जाने का कोई युि्व-यु्व आधार दिशत नहीं है। अतः ्ऺाथर्ना पत् िनरस्त िकये जाने योग्य है। आदेश ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ 94क अं०धारा 311 दं०्ऺ०सं० िनरस्त िकया जाता है। प्ऴावली वास्ते 313 दं०्ऺ०सं० िदनांक 22.08.2025 को पेश हो।"

13. In the aforesaid background of the case, present revision has been filed.

14. Learned counsel for the revisionist says that as per settled principle of law the application ought to have been allowed by the trial Court and the order impugned is 3 CRLR No. 975 of 2025 against the principle settled in this regard as also the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in regard to expression 'Fair Trial'. In this regard, he placed reliance on the judgment dated 30.07.2008 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Godrej Pacific Tech. Ltd. vs. Computer Joint India Ltd. reported in 2008 (11) SCC

108. As such, interference of this Court is required in the matter.

15. Learned AGA opposed the present revision. He stated that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved with sole intention to delay the trial, which is impermissible and in this view of the matter, the application has rightly been rejected by the trial Court. Prayer is to affirm the impugned order and dismiss the revision.

16. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

17. Considered the aforesaid facts and the observations made by the trial Court in the order dated 08.08.2025 and the principles related to recall of witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case(s) of Mohd. Khalid Versus State of West Bengal (2002) 7 SCC 334, Hanuman Prasad (Supra), Natasha Singh vs. CBI, (2013) 5 SCC 741 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 828 : 2013 SCC OnLine SC 444, State of Haryana vs. Ram Mehar and others; (2016) 8 SCC 762, Swapan Kumar Chatterjee vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2019) 14 SCC 328; Varsha Garg vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 986 and as also by this Court in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 274 of 2022 (Ram Nayak Singh vs. State of U.P. & Another).

18. It is well settled by catena of decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with the care, caution and circumspection and only for strong and valid reasons. The recall of a witness already examined should not be a matter of course and discretion given to the court in this regard has to be exercised judicially to prevent failure of justice. The object of the provision as a whole is to do justice not only from the point of view of the accused and the prosecution but also from the point of view of an orderly society.

19. The Court is fully conscious of the position that after all the trial is basically for the prisoners/accused and the Court should afford an opportunity to them in the fairest manner possible. At the same time, the Court should bear in mind that fair trial entails the interest of the accused, the victim and the society and, therefore, the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the persons concerned, must be ensured being a constitutional goal, as well as a human right. Recalling of witnesses has to be applied on the basis of judicially established and accepted principles.

20. In the facts of the case it would be apt to refer the observations made in the judgment(s) passed in the case of Mohd. Khalid (Supra) and Ram Mehar (Supra).

21. In the case of Mohd. Khalid (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- 4 CRLR No. 975 of 2025 "Before parting with the case, we may point out that the Designated Court deferred the cross- examination of the witnesses for a long time. That is a feature which is being noticed in many cases. Unnecessary adjournments give a scope for a grievance that the accused persons get a time to get over the witnesses. Whatever be the truth in this allegation, the fact remains that such adjournments lack the spirit of Section 309 of the Code. When a witness is available and his examination-in- chief is over, unless compelling reasons arc there, the Trial Court should not adjourn the matter on the mere asking. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh and others (2001) 4 SCC 667 and N.G. Dastane v. Shrikant Shivde (2001) 6 SCC 135. In the case of State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh and others (2001) 4 SCC 667, this Court deprecated the practice of Courts adjourning cases without examination of witnesses when they are in attendance with the following observations:- "9. We make it abundantly clear that if a witness is present in Court he must be examined on that day. The Court must know that most of the witnesses could attend the Court only at heavy cost to them, after keeping aside their own avocation. Certainly they incur suffering and loss of income. The meagre amount of bhatta (allowance) which a witness may be paid by the Court is generally a poor solace for the financial loss incurred by him. It is a said plight in the Trial Courts that witnesses who are called through summons or other processes stand at a doorstep from morning till evening only to be told at the end of the day that the case is adjourned to another day. This primitive practice must be reformed by every one provided the presiding officer concerned has a commitment towards duty. No sadistic pleasure, in seeing how other persons summoned by him as witnesses are standard on account of the dimension of his judicial powers, can be a persuading factor for granting such adjournments lavishly, that too in a casual manner."

22. In the case of Ram Mehar (Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:- "23. In Bablu Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and another, (2015) 8 SCC 787 the Court referred to the authorities in Sidhartha Vashisht alias Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC, Rattiram and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 4 SCC 516, J. Jayalalithaa and others v. State of Karnataka and others (2014) 2 SCC 401, State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy (1999) 8 SCC 715 and other decisions and came to hold that keeping in view the concept of fair trial, the obligation of the prosecution, the interest of the community and the duty of the court, it can irrefragably be stated that the court cannot be a silent spectator or a mute observer when it presides over a trial. It is the duty of the court to see that neither the prosecution nor the accused play truancy with the criminal trial or corrode the sanctity of the proceeding. They cannot expropriate or hijack the community interest by conducting themselves in such a manner as a consequence of which the trial becomes a farcical one. It has been further stated that the law does not countenance a "mock trial". It is a serious concern of society. Every member of the collective has an inherent interest in such a trial. No one can be allowed to create a dent in the same. The court is duty-bound to see that neither the prosecution nor the defence takes unnecessary adjournments and take the trial under their control. We may note with profit though the context was different, yet the message is writ large. The message is - all kinds of individual notions of fair trial have no room"." "38. At this juncture, we think it apt to state that the exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be sought to be invoked either by the prosecution or by the accused persons or by the Court itself. The High Court has been moved by the ground that the accused persons are in the custody and the concept of speedy trial is not nullified and no prejudice is caused, and, therefore, the principle of magnanimity should apply. Suffice it to say, a criminal trial does not singularly centres around the accused. In it there is involvement of the prosecution, the victim and the victim represents the collective. The cry of the collective may not be uttered in decibels which is physically audible in the court premises, but the Court has to remain sensitive to such silent cries and the agonies, for the society seeks justice. Therefore, a balance has to be struck. We have already explained the use of the words "magnanimous approach" and how it should be understood. Regard being had to the concept of balance, and weighing the factual score on the scale of balance, we are of the convinced opinion that the High Court has fallen into absolute error in axing the order passed by the learned trial Judge. If we allow ourselves to say, when the concept of fair trial is limitlessly stretched, having no boundaries, the orders like the present one may fall in the arena of sanctuary of errors. Hence, we reiterate the necessity of doctrine of 5 CRLR No. 975 of 2025 balance".

23. Having considered the aforesaid, this Court finds that application was moved with sole intention to delay the trial which has not been concluded despite delay of about 4 years and the process adopted by the defence is nothing, but an abuse of process of law. It is for the following reason(s):- (i) Specific allegations against the applicant were levelled under Sections 498A/304B I.P.C and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, in the FIR lodged on 24.03.2019; (ii) Before the trial court the statement of P.W.1/Rajesh Kumar was recorded on

21.09.2021 and concluded on 06.10.2021; (iii) After about four years the applicant moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for further cross-examination of PW-1, who has already been cross examined on the issue related to information of death (फौती सूचना) and the same is evident from the following portion of the statement of P.W.1:- "मैं इस घटना के संबंध में िदनांक 24/03/19 को सुबह करीब 3 बजे थाना लालगंज गया था, मेरे साथ मेरे दादा रामनरेश व मेरे चाचा रामकरन व रंजीत भी गये थे। मैने थाना लालगंज में िलिखत रूप से मृतका सोनी की मृत्यु के संबंध में यह सूचना िदया था िक "्ऺाथर् को राि्ऴ 11 बजकर 50 िमनट पर सोनी देवी बहन के यहाँ से फोन आया िक आपकी बहन ने फाँसी लगा िलया है इस सूचना पर मैं वहाँ पहुंचा मेरी बहन फाँसी लटकी हुयी है, अतः हम लोग सूचना देने के िलये आये हैं"। यह सूचना जब हम थाने देने गये थे तब करीब एक घंटा थाने पर रूके थे। यह सूचना देने व दजर् होने के प्ाात हम सभी लोग वापस अपनी बहन की ससुराल घटनास्थल गये थे। हम लोगों के घटनास्थल पर पहली बार पहुंचने के समय जो पुिलस मौके पर मौजूद थी उसकी सूचना मेरे बहनोई मुिल्जम अजय ्षारा पुिलस को दी गयी थी और उन्हीं की सूचना पर पुिलस घटनास्थल पर आयी थी। मैने या मेरे पिरवार के साथ गये िकसी ्िि्व ने पहली बार घटनास्थल पर पहुंचने पर मौके पर मौजूद पुिलसवालों को मुिल्जमान के िखलाफ दहेज भोगने या ्ऺतािड़त करने अथवा उसे मार डालने का कोई ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ नहीं िदया था। िदनांक 24/03/2019 को सुबह जब 3 बजे मैं थाना लालगंज गया था और वहाँ पर मैंने जो ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ बहन की मृत्यु के संबंध में िदया था उसमें भी मैंने मुिल्जमान ्षारा बहन सोनी से दहेज में कोई मांग करने, दहेज के िलये उसे ्ऺतािड़त करने व दहेज के िलये उसे मार डालने का कोई आरोप नहीं लगाया था।" (iv) The application U/s 311 Cr.P.C. is completely vague as is evident from the application annexed as Annexure No.4 to the present revision.

24. For the aforesaid, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 08.08.2025. The instant revision is hereby dismissed. Cost made easy. September 3, 2025 Jyoti/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench