IMPORTANT POINT
Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked without specific grounds, and its misuse to harass witnesses is impermissible.

JUDGMENT :

SUMEET GOEL, J.

1. Challenge in the present criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., is laid to the order dated 25.11.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal and order dated 18.04.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karnal, whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. stands dismissed.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner apparently in the most cursory, casual and apathetic manner. In as much as the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., which is the genesis of the dispute in the present case is not made part of the record of the case. No other pleadings forming part of the lis before the learned Trial Court or the learned Sessions Court have been made part of the record of the present criminal petition. Needless to say that in the absence of all these pleadings, which are the bare minimum requirements to evaluate the cause of grievance of the petitioner, present petition is an onerous task left for this Court to be adjudicated.

3. However, after evaluating the entire relevant material available on record of the case, just in the shape of the impugned orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge. Facts germane to the adjudication of the present petition are that an FIR seems to have been registered against the petitioner bearing No. 175, dated 23.02.2018 under Sections 341, 354- D, 506 IPC, at Police Station City, Karnal. In the said case after the complainant was Examined-in-Chief as well as her cross-examination was conducted, the petitioner filed an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. seeking recall of the complainant as a witness in the case. The said recall was sought on the grounds that the earlier counsel engaged by the petitioner had not put several documents to the complainant in her cross- examination. It was further averred that the previous counsel engaged by the petitioner did not even ask any question on conversation, photographs and compromise. As such, it was averred that the recall of the complainant as witness is imperative for just adjudication of the case.

4. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 25.11.2022 dismissed the said application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner. However, perusal of the order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the learned Magistrate makes it clear that before parting with the case in said order, yet another fresh application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. was filed before the learned Magistrate with a pendrive.

5. Against the order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the learned Magistrate, the petitioner filed a criminal revision petition bearing CRR No. 1 of 2023 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Karnal. On 25.01.2023, when the said criminal revision was fixed for arguments before learned Sessions Judge, the same was dismissed as withdrawn on statement made on behalf of petitioner that due to a technical defect he wants to file the same before the High Court.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a criminal revision petition No. 559 of 2023 before this Court. The said criminal revision petition was also withdrawn by the petitioner to again move to the Court of learned Sessions Judge. The said criminal revision was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 01.03.2023 passed by this court.

7. Then again the petitioner approached the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, by filing criminal revision No. 027 of 2023, against the order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the learned Magistrate.

8. The said criminal revision was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karnal, vide order dated 18.04.2023, on merits as well as on the issue of maintainability, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully. It is argue