The right to cross-examine is fundamental, but the court's discretion under Section 311 must be exercised judiciously, especially against unreasonable delays in raising procedural issues.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN MONGA, J.

1. Petition herein is directed against two orders dated 11.07.2025 and 18.07.2025 passed by the Learned ACJM, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. 310/2010, PS Anand Vihar, under Sections 323/325/341/506/509/34 of the IPC, whereby two applications, both under section 311 of the Cr.P.C. (348 of BNSS) filed one after the other in a short span of one week.

2. Aggrieved against both the above impugned orders, petitioner (an accused and under trial) pleads that has been falsely implicated. He has committed no offence as alleged by the complainant in the ongoing trial. After framing of the charges, the examination-in-chief of PW-1 Dr. B.K. Gupta was recorded on 14.08.2013 and his cross-examination was deferred on the request of the defence counsel as he wanted to cross-examine PW-1 Dr. B.K. Gupta and his son PW-2 Dr. Mohit Gupta (complainant) together. On the next date of hearing i.e. 30.10.2013, PW-2 Dr. Mohit Gupta was called and his examination-in-chief was recorded. He was then partly but extensively cross-examined, and his further cross-examination was deferred to 23.07.2014. On 23.07.2014, he was further cross-examined and the matter was again deferred to 25.02.2015. On 25.02.2015, both PW-1 Dr.B.K. Gupta and PW-2 Dr. Mohit Gupta were present, but the petitioner’s counsel was engaged in a bail matter in Rohini Court. His proxy counsel requested the Ld. Predecessor to adjourn the matter for their cross-examination, but the request was declined and the opportunity for cross-examination was marked 'Nil'.

2.1. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling both witnesses for cross-examination. However, due to a typographical error in the application, only PW-1 Dr. Mohit Gupta was mentioned instead of PW-1 Dr. B.K. Gupta and PW-2 Dr. Mohit Gupta. The petitioner's counsel requested the Ld. Predecessor to recall both witnesses, and the application was allowed, but inadvertently the order sheet mentioned only PW-1 Dr. Mohit Gupta instead of PW-1 Dr. B.K. Gupta and PW-2 Dr. Mohit Gupta due to an error by the court steno. The counsel remained under the impression that the Hon’ble Trial Court had allowed the recall of both witnesses. Subsequently, the cross-examination of PW-2 Dr. Mohit Gupta was conducted on 08.07.2015, and other witnesses were cross-examined by the associate counsel, except PW-1 Dr. B.K. Gupta. The associate counsel was under the mistaken belief that both PW-1 and PW-2 had already been cross-examined. Thereafter, the statement of the accused and defence evidence were also conducted by the associate counsel.

2.2. At the time of final arguments, the petitioner’s counsel discovered that PW-1 had not been cross-examined while preparing the final submissions. Upon inspecting the judicial file, the counsel requested the Hon’ble Trial Court to recall PW-1 for cross-examination. However, the request was declined by the court vide order dated 11.07.2025, and the matter was listed for final arguments on 18.07.2025 as a last opportunity. On 18.07.2025, the petitioner again moved an application for recalling PW-1 Dr. B.K. Gupta, citing reasonable facts and relevant legal precedents, but this application was also dismissed by the Trial Court by order dated 18.07.2025.

3. Hence the instant petition.

4. In the aforesaid backdrop I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP and perused the trial court record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge on the line of the grounds taken in the petition and argue that the Trial Court failed to exercise its judicial min