Hon'ble Mrs. Ranjana Pandya, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondent.

2. By means of this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has prayed for quashing of the order dated 26.02.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Moradabad and also for a direction to the trial court to allow the application No. 27B of 2011, under section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the Investigating Officer PW-5 Pankaj Verma in Sessions Trial No. 235 of 2014 arising out of Case Crime No. 175 of 2013, under section 307 IPC, PS Hazrat Nagar Gari, district Moradabad.

3. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant moved an application under section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning PW-6 Dr Sunil Kumar, who was not mentioned in the charge sheet. This witness PW-6 Dr Sunil Kumar has stated that the injured Ankush Kumar was admitted in the hospital by some police personnel. Hence, the Investigating Officer PW-5 has to be further cross-examined on certain points, which were left out. Hence the witness PW-5 Pankaj Verma to be summoned under section 311 Cr.P.C. This application was rejected by the learned trial court on 26.02.2016. If the orders is allowed to stand, it will occasion the failure of justice and the applicant will suffer irreparable loss.

4. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the Court has ample powers to examine this aspect of the matter on an application moved under section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence the prayer is liable to be allowed.

5. No doubt, this aspect of the matter can be examined by this Court while exercising power under section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Devendra and others vs State of U.P. and another reported in (2009) 7 SCC 495 and in Natasha Singh vs Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2013) 5 SCC 741, but the court has definitely to see whether the summoning of a particular witness is necessary to do justice between the parties or not.

7. Section 311 Cr.P.C. reads as follows:

"311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present. Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case."

8. The court has to look into the matter whether the evidence proposed to be adduced is relevant or not. The applicant has no grievance regarding examination of PW-6 Dr Sunil Kumar. His grievance is that PW-5 is the Investigating Officer to whom certain question related to PW-6 had to be put, but were not put. Why the questions were not put has not come forward from the side of the applicant.

9. In (2008) 11 Supreme Court Cases 108, Godrej Pacific Tech. Limited vs Computer Joint India Limited, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down

"8. The object underlying Section 311 of the Code is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. The determinative factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the case. The section is not limited only for the benefit of the accused, and it will not be an improper exercise of the powers of the court to summon a witness under the section merely because the evidence supports the case of the prosecution and not that of the accused. The section is a general section which applies to all proceedings, enquiries and trials under the Code and empowers the Magistrate to issue summons to any witness at any stage of such proceedings, trial or enquiry. In Section