[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Ghanshyam Narang vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 February, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:10382
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 315 of 2026
1 - Ghanshyam Narang S/o Late Lakhan Lal Narang Aged About
43 Years R/o Village - Bhathagaon, Police Station - Amleshwar,
District - Durg Chhattisgarh
2 - Parmanand Narang S/o Ghanshyam Narang Aged About 20
Years R/o Village - Bhathagaon, Police Station - Amleshwar,
District - Durg Chhattisgarh
3 - Bugleshwari Narang D/o Ghanshyam Narang Aged About 24
Years R/o Village - Bhathagaon, Police Station - Amleshwar,
District - Durg Chhattisgarh
4 - Devla Bai Narang W/o Ghanshyam Narang Aged About 37
Years R/o Village - Bhathagaon, Police Station - Amleshwar,
District - Durg Chhattisgarh
... Petitioners
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police
Station - Amleshwar, District - Durg Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioners : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv. and
Ms. Divya Sahu, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
Digitally
signed by
HEERA HEERA
LAL SAHU
LAL Date:
SAHU 2026.02.27
16:59:14
+0530
27/02/2026
1 Heard.
2 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the
impugned order dated 19.12.2025 passed in Criminal Case
No. 1048/2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Bhilai-3, District - Durg (C.G.) whereby the learned judge has
closed the opportunity for the accused persons to re-cross-
examine the prosecution witnesses namely, Aatiq Hussain, Saroj
and Mohshin Ahmed.
3 The case of the petitioners was that on the basis of the
written complaint of complainant, the police of police
station Amleshwar registered the FIR bearing Crime No.
154/2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 294,
427, 447, 34 of IPC against the petitioners and the case is
pending before the learned JMFC, Bhilai-3, District - Durg
(C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 1048/2022. During the trial,
the petitioners filed an application under Section 311 of
Cr.P.C. before the trial Court stating therein that cross-
examination of prosecution witnesses No. 1 to 6 was
conducted by the erstwhile advocate; however, some
significant questions were not asked during said cross-
examination, nor were denials properly recorded, which
resulted in a failure to establish the defence of the
accused. It was alleged that the previous advocate was in
collusion with the complainant. Therefore, a request was
made to recall the prosecution witness for further cross-
examination. On perusal of the record, the learned trial
Court allowed the application vide order dated 02.09.2025,
directing that the accused had a full opportunity to cross-
examine PW-1. However, in the interest of justice, one
more opportunity was granted. It was clarified that only
one opportunity will be provided; subject to this direction,
a summons was issued to witness for evidence.
4 Further, the case of the petitioners was that on
19.12.2025, prosecution witnesses, namely Aatiq Hussain,
Saroj and Mohshin Ahmed were present in the Court and an
advocate appeared on behalf of the accused persons and
moved an application under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. for
exemption from personal appearance, stating that the
accused persons were absent due to some urgent work.
The application was allowed in the interest of justice.
Further, the defence counsel moved an application stating
that the lead counsel is unwell, and requested an
adjournment for cross-examination. The learned trial
Court reviewed the records and observed that the evidence
of all prosecution witnesses had already been recorded and
cross-examined previously. The witnesses were recalled
under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. only upon the request of
defence counsel. Despite this, the defence counsel is
absent today, and an adjournment is sought. Looking to
the circumstances of the case, the Court did not find it
appropriate to grant further opportunity for cross-
examination. The opportunity for the accused to cross-
examine the witnesses was closed. Hence, the petition.
5 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
learned trial Court erred in law by not exercising discretion
judiciously under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., which mandates
recalling witnesses in the interest of justice to prevent
miscarriage of justice. The earlier order dated 02.09.2025
itself recognised the need for further cross-examination to
address deficiencies, yet the impugned order summarily
negates this without affording a single effective
opportunity. The closure of prosecution evidence forthwith
is prejudicial and amounts to a denial of the petitioners'
right to defend themselves effectively, as the witnesses'
testimony forms a crucial part of the prosecution case
regarding the alleged incidents of obstruction, demolition,
and theft. The petitioners have not been dilatory in the
proceedings; the request for recall was bona fide to rectify
lapses by the erstwhile advocate, and the adjournment on
19.12.2025 was sought for a legitimate cause. The action
of the learned trial Court in closing the evidence without
prior notice or hearing on the adjournment application
violates audi alteram partem, rendering the order null and
void ab initio. As such, the order impugned is liable to be
set aside.
6 Learned State counsel opposes the arguments advanced by
the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that
the petitioners have granted sufficient opportunity for
cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. After
allowing the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., the
counsel for the petitioners was not present to cross-
examine the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the
opportunity has been closed.
7 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material available on record including the impugned
order.
8 Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, and
also looking to the fact that the trial Court has allowed the
application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C to cross-examine
the prosecution witnesses namely, Aatiq Hussain, Saroj
and Mohshin Ahmed, but on 19.12.2025 when the above
named prosecution witnesses were present in the Court,
the defence counsel was not present for cross-examine due
to ill health and the opportunity of cross-examination for
the prosecution witness has been closed. However, in the
interest of justice, considering the fact that at present the
I.O. is also calling for examination, it is appropriate to give
one more opportunity to the accused persons to cross-
examine the aforesaid prosecution witnesses.
9 Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.12.2025 is set
aside. The counsel for the accused persons is granted one
more opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution
witnesses, namely Aatiq Hussain, Saroj, and Mohshin
Ahmed, with the condition that they will be cross-
examined by the defence on the date they appear in Court.
No further opportunity will be given, and the accused
persons will pay an amount of rupees two thousand as an
expense to every one of the aforesaid witnesses whenever
they appear for cross-examination.
10 Accordingly, with the aforesaid direction, the CRMP is
disposed of at the stage of admission.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
H.L. Sahu
