JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent these matters have been heard.

3. The present petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 18.03.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in S.T. No. 198 of 2018 whereby petition filed under section 311 of the Cr.P.C. dated 12.03.2020 has been rejected by the concerned Court.

4. Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on three points victim and I.O. of the case are requried for further cross-examination and for that a petition under section 311 Cr.P.C. dated 12.03.2020 was filed which has been rejected by the trial court. He submits that the petition was under section 311 Cr.P.C. with prayer for call for victim as well as I.O. for further cross-examination which was required to be considered by the learned trial court. He submits that at this stage, the Court is empowered to allow the petition under section 311 Cr.P.C. He relied upon judgment in the case of “Manju Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another” reported in (2019) 6 SCC 203 wherein para 10 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :-

“10. It needs hardly any emphasis that the discretionary powers like those under Section 311 CrPC are essentially 7 intended to ensure that every necessary and appropriate measure is taken by the Court to keep the record straight and to clear any ambiguity insofar as the evidence is concerned as also to ensure that no prejudice is caused to anyone. The principles underlying Section 311 CrPC and amplitude of the powers of the court thereunder have been explained by this Court in several decisions. In Natasha Singh v. CBI, though the application for examination of witnesses was filed by the accused but, on the principles relating to the exercise of powers under Section 311, this Court observed, inter alia, as under: (SCC pp. 746 & 748-49, paras 8 &15)

“8. Section 311 CrPC empowers the court to summon a material witness, or to examine a person present at “any stage” of “any enquiry”, or “trial”, or “any other proceedings” under CrPC, or to summon any person as a witness, or to recall and re-examine any person who has already been examined if his evidence appears to it, to be essential to the arrival of a just decision of the case. Undoubtedly, CrPC has conferred a very wide discretionary power upon the court in this respect, but such a discretion is to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The power of the court in this context is very wide, and in exercise of the same, it may summon any person as a witness at any stage of the trial, or other proceedings. The court is competent to exercise such power even suo motu if no such application has been filed by either of the parties. However, the court must satisfy itself, that it was in fact essential to examine such a witness, or to recall him for further examination in order to arrive at a just decision of the case.

* * *

15. The scope and object of the provision is to enable the court to determine the truth and to render a just decision after discovering all relevant facts and obtaining proper proof of such facts, to arrive at a just decision of the case. Power must be exercised judiciously and not capriciously or arbitrarily, as any improper or capricious exercise of such power may lead to undesirable results. An application under Section 311 CrPC must not be allowed only to fill up a lacuna in the case of the prosecution, or of the defence, or to the disadvantage of the accused, or to cause serious prejudice to the defence of the accused, or to give an unfair advantage to the opposite party. Further, the additional evidence must not be received