JUDGMENT :

Kirti Singh, J.

The prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is for setting aside of order dated 17.05.2024 (Annexure P-19), passed by the learned trial Court in case FIR No. 0014 dated 28.01.2017 (Annexure P-1), registered at Police Station Women Police Station, Faridabad, District Faridabad, for offences punishable under Sections 354(A)(1), 377, 406, 498-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, whereby the application filed by the complainant/respondent No.2 under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. has been partly allowed.

2. Brief factual narrative pertinent for adjudication of the matter at hand is that marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 30.04.2015. It is alleged that soon after marriage, respondent No.2 was met with harassment and torture for demand of dowry, which continued till August 2016, whereafter she left the matrimonial home and started residing with her parents. A complaint was moved by respondent No.2 against her husband, i.e., petitioner No.1, and her in-laws, and the aforesaid FIR was lodged on 28.01.2017. Challan was filed and thereafter charges were framed against the petitioner No.1, the mother-in-law, who is a party to the instant petition as petitioner No.2, as also the father-in-law of the complainant. The trial commenced, during which course, the respondent No.2 moved an application under section 311 Cr.P.C. for her re-call as a witness and for production of additional evidence by way of a pen-drive containing a call recording of the 'accused persons' with respondent No.2, allegedly admitting to the acts of cruelty committed against her. The said application was partly allowed, only qua the petitioner No.2 by way of the impugned order, challenging which, the present petition has been filed.

SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

3. The foundational plank on which the learned counsel for the petitioners has built the entire structure of his arguments is that the application moved under section 311 Cr.P.C. is nothing but a tactic to delay the already prolonged proceedings, to add to the agony of the petitioners. It is his contention that since its inception, respondent No.2 has sought to hinder the conduct of a speedy trial. The entire trial, it is submitted by the learned counsel, has been marred with the mala fide intent of implicating the petitioners based on false, vague and utterly frivolous allegations. While painstakingly taking the Court through the zimni orders passed in the case, he submits that prior to moving the application under section 311 Cr.P.C, respondent No.2 chose to move this Court against the order of the trial Court not charging petitioner No.1 under section 377 IPC, and when the same was upheld, an SLP was filed unsuccessfully before the Supreme Court. Respondent No.2 even raised doubts regarding the partisan conduct of the trial, constraining the Court to transfer the case to the successor Court. It is further submitted that during 5 years of the trial, a total of 44 effective opportunities were availed by respondent No.2 side just to complete evidence, and during the entire period, respondent No.2 did not put forth any declaration, much less assertion, for bringing on record the said call recording. It is also not the case where not doing the needful can be attributed as being an inadvertent mistake, since respondent No.2 had access to her counsel at all times, and at one-two odd occasions had even refused to depose in his absence. Furthermore, during her cross-examination, while answering a pointed query, respondent No.2 mentioned about having recorded the conversation that she had with petitioner No.1 and his maternal uncle. Nowhere did she disclose petitioner No.2's name for that purpose. It was only after the entire process of her evidence, including cross-examination stood concluded, that respondent No.2, with the sole purpose of filling the lacunae in the case of the prosecution, moved an application to adduce add