ORDER :

1. Instant petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. lays challenge to order dated 25.08.2018, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, passed in Cr. Revision No. 08/2018, titled Miss Rameshwari Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, affirming the order dated 03.05.2018, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, H.P. in Police Challan No. 108-1/2011, titled State vs. Rameshwari, whereby, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. having been filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused’) seeking therein permission to examine three witnesses in defence, came to be dismissed.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that FIR No. 135 of 2010, came to be instituted against the accused Rameshwari Sharma, who is Advocate by profession, at the behest of complainant namely Miss Rekha Thakur, who alleged that on 21st December, 2010, Advocate named hereinabove, gave her beatings. Record reveals that on the date of alleged incident, complainant Rekha Thakur, had come in Court premises at Kullu in connection with bail petition having been filed by her in case FIR No. 348/2010, dated 21.12.2010, lodged at the behest of Kiran Gautam W/o Bhuvneshwer Gautam, who otherwise happens to be sister of accused, under Sections 341, 323 and 506 IPC. When above-named Rekha Thakur, was ordered to be enlarged on bail by the court below in FIR No. 348/2010, some altercation took place inter se her and accused herein and allegedly accused gave beatings to her and as such, FIR No. 135 of 2010 came to be lodged against the accused herein. After completion of investigation, police presented challan in the case. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of petitioner/accused, being accused in FIR No. 135 of 2010, was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 05.08.2016, whereafter, repeatedly matter came to be adjourned at the request of accused for recording the statements of witnesses in defence. However, fact remains that accused, failed to produce defence witnesses and as such, closed her defence evidence on 26.04.2017. After nine months of passing of order dated 26.04.2017, whereby, defence of accused was closed, she filed an application in the month of January, 2018, under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking therein permission of Court to examine three witnesses in her defence. In application, accused claimed that witnesses proposed to be examined by her are essential for just decision of case. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, having taken note of the fact that despite repeated opportunities, accused failed to lead evidence in defence, dismissed the application vide order dated 03.05.2018. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, accused preferred Criminal Revision Petition before Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, H.P. which was also dismissed vide order dated 25.08.2018. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to allow her application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. after setting aside the aforesaid orders passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu and learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu.

3. Mr. Chander Shekhar, learned counsel, representing the accused, while referring to provision contained under Section 311 Cr.P.C. contends that Court enjoys vast powers to summon/re-examine or recall a witness, at any stage of proceedings, especially, when same is necessary for proper adjudication of the case. While referring to the statements made by prosecution witnesses, especially, complainant Rekha Thakur, Mr. Sharma, submits that once, it has specifically come in her statement that at the time of alleged incident, many lawyers were present on the spot, prayer made in the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. having been filed by the accused seeking therein permission to examine three Advocates and one Duty Constable, ought to have been allowed by the court below, enabling it to