ORDER :

1. The petitioner herein is standing trial for offence under Section 376(2)(n), 384, 506, 120B & 509B/34 of the IPC and Section 67 of the Information and Technology Act, 2008. During the course of trial, the victim was examined, cross-examined and discharged on 18.3.2021 by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur and thereafter other witnesses were also examined. Thereafter the petitioner herein/accused and the victim filed a joint application for closure of the case on the ground that they both have entered into compromise and therefore, criminal case be closed, but the Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur only discharged the petitioner herein for offence under Section 506 Part-II of the IPC being compoundable offence and rest of the offences being non- compoundable directed to proceed with the trial. Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed an application under Section 311 of the CrPC for recalling the victim for further cross-examination and also filed affidavit of the victim that she has compromised with him, therefore, the victim be directed to appear for further cross-examination, which the trial Court has rejected finding no merit, against which, this petition under Section 482 of the CrPC has been filed.

2. Detailed return opposing the petition has already been filed by the respondent/State.

3. Mr.Pankaj Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the learned Special Judge is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner as it is just and proper disposal of the trial. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. He would rely upon the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Varsha Garg v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, AIR 2022 SC 3707. He would further rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mina Lalita Baruwa v. State of Orissa and others, (2013) 16 SCC 173 and lastly he would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India and another, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 271.

4. On the other hand, Mr.Kapil Maini, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State, would support the impugned order and submit that application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of the CrPC has rightly been rejected by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities) and as such, the petition under Section 482 of the CrPC deserves to be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

6. In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to notice Section 311 of the CrPC which states as under:-

“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.”

7. It is well settled law that power and jurisdiction under Section 311 of the CrPC should be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. Exigency of the situation, fair play and good sense should be the safeguard, while exercising the discretion. The exercise of the widest discretionary power under Section 311 CrPC should ensure that the judgment should not be rendered on inchoate, inconclusive and speculative presentation of facts, as thereby the ends of justice would be defeated. It is also equally well settled that if evidence of any witness appears to the court to be essential to the just decision of the case, the court has power to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such witness. The exercise of power under Section 311 CrPC should be resorted to only with the object of finding out t