Gujarat High Court
Krupal Bipinchandra Patel (Dhodiya) vs State Of Gujarat on 25 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/13405/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 13405 of 2024
==========================================================
KRUPAL BIPINCHANDRA PATEL (DHODIYA)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NV GANDHI(1693) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN H RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 25/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] By way of present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with provisions of the CrPC, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions and be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned, (a) judgment and order dtd.27.08.2024 passed by the Ld. 6 th Addl. Sessions Judge, Surat at Bardoli (Annex.A) and (b) order below Exh.86 dtd.04.02.2021 passed in Criminal Revision Application No.8 of 2021 and (Annex.C) be further pleased to direct the Ld. Trial Court to recall the witnesses examined at Exh.44 & 62 to permit the petitioner - accused to re-
examine them as prayed vide Application below Exh.86, in the interest of justice;"
[2.0] Prima facie, it appears that petitioner is an Advocate and he has filed an application Exh.86, under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC"), to recall the witness which came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bardoli vide order dated 04.02.2021. The said order was assailed by the petitioner by way of Criminal Revision Application No.8 of 2021, which also came to be rejected vide Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 23:57:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13405/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined judgment dated 27.08.2024 with direction to the learned Magistrate to conclude the trial as the case is of the year 2012 and was pending at the stage of final arguments. Though, belatedly after 3 years, on 07.10.2024, the petitioner by way of present petition approached this Court challenging the orders passed by both the Courts below and the trial is till date pending.
[3.0] Perusing the record, on merits also, it appears that the petitioner - accused wants to recall two witnesses namely (1) Hetviben Kishorbhai Patel (Exh.44) and (2) Dr. Kishan Paniyabhai Gavit (Exh.62). The deposition of said witnesses were already recorded respectively on 06.09.2018 and 24.01.2019 and thereafter they were cross-examined and the evidence of prosecution was over. Further statement of the present petitioner was also recorded and the matter was kept for final hearing. At that time, application Exh.86 for recalling of witnesses was given without any reason. It appears that the petitioner only wants to prove his presence at different places through evidence of said witnesses, which cannot be the ground to recall the witness in exercise of power under Section 311 of the CrPC for filling up the gap. There is no any ambiguity or any material contradiction or anything pointed out which caused prejudice to the petitioner if the permission to recall the said witnesses is not accorded.
[4.0] Further, the power under Section 311 of the CrPC is a discretionary power and underlying object of section 311 of CrPC is explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.N. Patil vs. K. Niranjan Kumar and Others reported in (2021)3 SCC 661, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 23:57:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13405/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined paragraphs 13 and 17 as under:
"13. The scope of Section 311 CrPC which is relevant for the present purpose is reproduced hereunder:-
"311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present--Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case."
17. The aim of every Court is to discover the truth. Section 311 CrPC is one of many such provisions which strengthen the arms of a court in its effort to unearth the truth by procedure sanctioned by law. At the same time, the discretionary power vested under Section 311 CrPC has to be exercised judiciously for strong and valid reasons and with caution and circumspection to meet the ends of justice."
[4.1] Considering the aforesaid fact, merely asking of the petitioner, Court is not duty bound to exercise the discretion under Section 311 of the CrPC to recall the witnesses and such power must be exercised with caution and circumspection and only for strong and valid reason. The recall of witness, who is already examined, is not a matter of course. The Court has to exercise such powers judicially and to prevent the failure of justice. Delay in filing of such application for recall of witnesses is one of the important factor. Herein, no any ground for delay in filing such application is explained by the petitioner - accused though he is an Advocate. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 23:57:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/13405/2024 ORDER DATED: 25/08/2025 undefined case of Ratanlal v. Prahlad Jat reported in (2017)9 SCC 340.
[5.0] In view of above, no case is made out to interfere with the orders passed by both the Courts below in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India more particularly when the learned Revisional Court had directed the learned trial Court to conclude the trial of the case as the case is of the year 2012 and is pending at the stage of final arguments though the learned JMFC has adopted the lackadaisical approach. Hence, present petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. Notice is hereby discharged.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.) Ajay Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Mon Aug 25 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Aug 25 23:57:41 IST 2025