Punjab-Haryana High Court

Raj Veer Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 20 November, 2025

CRM-M--39616-2025                                                                1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

127                                                  CRM-M-39616-2025


Raj Veer Singh
                                                                ....Petitioner
                                          V/s
State of Haryana and another
                                                                ....Respondents
Date of decision: 20.11.2025
Date of Uploading : 20.11.2025
                    20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:     Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
             Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
             Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for respondent No.2.
                                         *****
SUMEET GOEL,
       GOEL J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the

BNSS, 2023 seeking quashing of the order dated 29.05.2025 (Annexure P-

5) passed by learned Sessions Judge, Palwal whereby the application under

Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution/complaina prosecution/complainant nt for recalling the

complainant/PW 6 complainant/PW-6 Chhail Mohan Gautam, in Sessions Case

No.SC/354/2023 dated 08.08.2023 arising out of FIR No.329 dated

15.10.2022 registered under Sections 323,325,307, 452, 506 IPC at Police

Station Sadar Palwal has been allowed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the PW-

6/complainant has already been examined examined-in-chief.. Learned counsel has

further iterated that the attempt of the prosecution to recall him at the fag

end of the trial, after examination of nine wi witnesses, tnesses, is nothing but an effort

to fill up the material lacunae which is impermissible in law. According to

1 of 6

learned counsel, the complainant is himself a practicing lawyer, who lodged

the complaint after fully understanding the contents and deposed in C Court ourt

with complete awareness of the facts. Hence, seeking his recall merely to

clarify the father's name of the accused demonstrates that the application

was filed with an oblique motive. Furthermore, the prosecution has failed to

show how the proposed clarification clarification is essential for the just decision of the

case. Learned counsel has further submitted that the trial Court has allowed

the application in hand in a mechanical manner without recording any

satisfaction which shows non-application non application of mind. Lear Learned ned counsel has

asserted that the recall of PW-6 PW 6 at such a belated stage, when the trial is

almost complete, causes grave prejudice to the petitioner. Furthermore, it is

pertinent to note that the impugned order is non non-speaking speaking as the concluding

paragraph of the order clearly indicates that the Court below has allowed the

application without properly considering the facts and circumstances of the

case. On the basis of aforesaid submissions, the impugned order deserves to

be set-aside.

aside.

3. Learned State counsel ounsel as well as the learned counsel appearing

for the complainant-respondent complainant respondent No.2 has opposed the instant petition by

arguing that Section 311 Cr.P.C. give the Court very wide and unfettered

powers to summon or recall any witness at any stage of the tria triall if their

evidence appears essential for arriving at a just decision of the case.

According to learned counsel, the recall of PW PW-6 6 is strictly for limited

purpose in order to clarify the father's name of the accused which

inadvertently has been wrongly typed typed due to typographical or clerical

oversight. Furthermore, the prosecution does not seek to alter the

2 of 6

substantive evidence or to introduce any new facts. Learned counsel have

further submitted that the Court below has examined the application in hand

on merits and passed a reasoned order. On the strength of these

submissions, the dismissal of the instant petition is prayed for.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused

the paper--book.

5. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by

this Court in case titled as Karamjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and

another: 2024 NCPHHC 24178;

24178 relevant whereof reads as under:

under:-

"8.4 As an epilogue to the above rumination, the following prin principles ciples emerge:

(I) The broad gamut for exercising power by a criminal trial Court under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. are as follows:

(i) The prime factor for considering a plea under Section 311 of Cr,.P.C. is as to whether such evidence "

"appears to be essential to the just decision of the case."

(ii) Section 311 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked by a criminal trial Court even when cross-examination examination of a witness has earlier been foreclosed by a Court order. Such exercise of power by the Court cannot be construed as thee concerned Court recalling/reviewing its own order.

(iii) Section 311 of Cr.P.C. empowers a criminal trial Court to even allow further examination/cross-examination examination of a witness at instance of the prosecution/accused.

             (iv)    A criminal Court is well wi
                                              within,

thin, its judicial discretion, to summon any person as a witness at any stage of proceedings/trial etc. till such Court is seized of the matter.

(v) A criminal trial Court may exercise power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. on an application made by a party to lis or on its own volition.

(vi) Successive application(s) for summoning same witness for examination/re-examination examination is not debarred but such a plea deserves to be dealt with exercising a higher degree of circumspection.

(II) No straight jacket formulae lae can be enumerated regarding mode, manner and extent of exercise of power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C by a criminal trial Court as every case has its own unique facts/circumstances.

3 of 6

It is neither possible nor pragmatic to lay down any such exhaustive guide-lines as every case is sui generis in terms of factual conspectus. (III) Needless to say that exercise of power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. by a criminal trial Court should be undertaken by according cogent and lucid reasons, in accordance with bbasic asic principles of our criminal jurisprudence, for such exercise of its power."

6. The respondent No.2 - complainant has lodged FIR in question

against the petitioner on the basis of written complaint dated 14.10.2022.

Upon registration of the FIR, the matter matter was duly investigated and the police

submitted the challan before the concerned Court. The prosecution cited 14

witnesses in the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Charges were,

thereafter, framed and the petitioner pleaded not guilty. Out of the 14

prosecution witnesses, 01 witness has been given up. After completion of

examination of 09 witnesses, the complainant moved two applications i.e.

one under Section 216 Cr.P.C. seeking alteration of charge by adding an

additional offence under Section Se 379-B B IPC and secondly the application in

hand under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of PW PW-6/complainant 6/complainant for

further examination-in-chief examination chief only for clarification regarding the father's

name of the accused. Upon issuance of notice, the accused accused-petitioner tioner filed

replies opposing both the applications. However, the learned Court below

allowed both the applications. The petitioner has now challenged the order

only to the extent that of recalling of PW-

PW-6/complainant.

7. The factual conspectus of the matter in hand reflects that the

complainant respondent No.2 has moved the application in hand before the complainant-respondent

Court below seeking recall of PW-6/complainant PW 6/complainant for further examination examination--in-

chief only for clarification regarding the father's name of the accused. The

Court below, after considering the submissions of the rival parties, recorded

4 of 6

a finding that such clarification would not prejudice the accused and may

assist the Court in proper appreciation of the evidence. It is well established

principle of law that, in the interest of justice, valuable evidence that may

have been omitted due to an oversight or mistake by either party can be

brought on record at any stage of the proceedings, provided it is essential for

the just decision of the case. The contention th that at the prosecution intends to

fill lacunae is without merit. The evidence sought does not change the

substratum of the case of prosecution and does not reopen the entire

examination chief. Furthermore, the identity of the accused is a material examination-in-chief.

issue in n every criminal trial. The accused accused-petitioner petitioner has the right to cross-

cross

examine PW-6 PW 6 on the limited aspect for which recall has been allowed. The

Court below has restricted the scope of recall thereby ensuring that the

accused suffers no prejudice. In the considered opinion of this Court, the

impugned order cannot be termed arbitrary, perverse or contrary to law.

Moreover, the paramount consideration while deciding an application under

Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is whether the evidence sought to be adduced is

necessary for a just and fair decision of the case and to meet the ends of

justice, irrespective of the stage at which the application is filed.

8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any error in

the impugned order passed by the Court below. In the considered opinion

of this Court, the trial Court has appropriately dealt with the application in

question by allowing the same.

9. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, atiocination, it is directed as follows:

5 of 6

(i) The impugned order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the Sessions

Judge, Palwal does not call for any interference interference.. The petition in hand is

accordingly dismissed.

(ii) Any observations made and/or submissions no noted ted hereinabove

shall not have any effect on the merits of the case and the Court below shall

proceed further, in accordance with law, without being influenced

therefrom.

(iii) Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.





                                                    (SUMEET GOEL)
                                                       JUDGE

November 20, 2025
Ajay


             Whether speaking/reasoned:                Yes/No
             Whether reportable:                       Yes/No




                                6 of 6