The central legal point established in the judgment is the careful exercise of discretionary powers under Section 311 CrPC, ensuring fair and just decision-making without unnecessarily harassing witnesses.

JUDGMENT :

1. By this petition, the petitioner, who is the complainant in case FIR No. 294/2013, under Sections 326-A/34 IPC registered at P.S. Punjabi Bagh challenges the order dated 8th February, 2019 whereby the learned Trial Court, on an application filed by the accused recalled the petitioner/complainant/victim for cross examination.

2. The case of the petitioner/complainant is that she is the victim of acid attack and despite having appeared on number of dates and having been examined and cross examined extensively, when the learned counsel for the accused was not present, her further cross examination was closed vide order dated 12th September, 2018, however, for no rhyme and reasons and simply to harass the victim, an application was filed by the accused under Section 311 CrPC to recall her for cross examination on the pretext that she had to be confronted with certain photographs, which has been allowed by the impugned order.

3. Case of the accused/respondent No. 4, represented through his counsel, who had filed the application for recall of the petitioner is that the impugned order is a detailed and well reasoned order; one opportunity has been granted to the respondent for further cross examination of the petitioner by imposing heavy costs and confrontation of the relevant photographs to the victim/petitioner is necessary for the just decision of the case, the petitioner being the only material witness in the prosecution case.

4. A perusal of the order sheets of the learned Trial court reveals that, charge was framed against the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 for offence punishable under Section 326-A/34 IPC on 5th March, 2015 and the matter was listed for prosecution evidence on 30th April, 2015 when the petitioner was not served. On 30th April, 2015, thus, the petitioner was directed to be served through the Investigating Officer and was consequently present on 6th July, 2015, on which date, it was revealed that the FSL report was not on record and the case property had also not been brought. Thus, the Director, FSL was directed to expedite the report and matter was listed for 9th September, 2015. When the report of FSL was filed, the petitioner could not be present as her father had expired. On the next date i.e. 10th November, 2015, petitioner was present when her examination-in-chief was recorded. However, since the main counsel for the accused was not present, proxy counsel prayed for an adjournment and thus, her cross examination was deferred. On 2nd January, 2016, the petitioner could not be present as her son had met with an accident and thus, the recording of evidence was deferred for 15th March, 2016. On 15th March, 2016, when the complainant was present thrice pass over was sought by the proxy counsel for the accused on the ground that main counsel was not present and hence, the matter was adjourned subject to cost of Rs. 2000/- imposed on the accused persons to be paid to the complainant. On the next date i.e. 30th May, 2016, petitioner was cross examined partly and her further cross examination was deferred on the request of learned counsel for the accused. Again on 8th September, 2016, petitioner was present for further cross examination. However, learned counsel for the accused sought an adjournment as the main counsel was down with viral fever. On 24th November, 2016, petitioner was again cross examined. However, further cross examination of her was deferred on the ground, learned defence counsel stated that the witness was required to be shown some photographs, which were not brought. Notice of presence for further cross examination was issued to the petitioner on 9th May, 2017 for 18th August, 2017 when she was present. However, the learned Presiding Officer was on leave. On 23rd November, 2017, the next date though not served with summons, the petitioner appeared, but could also not be cross examined as the learned proxy counsel for the accused sought an adjournment as the sister-in-law of the main counsel w