Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.

1. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred on behalf of applicant seeking the quashing of impugned orders dated 05.10.2017 and 28.10.2017 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.14, Allahabad in S.T. No.28 of 2012 (State vs. Ashiq @ Malli and others) u/s 302, 201 I.P.C., Police Station-George Town, District-Allahabad, whereby the court below has rejected the applications moved on behalf of applicant u/s 311 Cr.P.C.

2. Shri Bhuwan Raj, Advocate has filed counter affidavit today on behalf of opposite party no.2, which has been taken on record.

3. Heard Shri Deepak Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant.

4. This application moved on behalf of the applicant-accused has touched upon multiple facts and issues. But the applicant's counsel at the very outset of his submissions categorically clarifies that he wanted to confine his argument only to a very limited legal aspect of the matter. In view of this submission, the Court heard the counsel only on the aspect which the counsel has pressed forth before the Court and has only proceeded with hearing of the matter for the limited purpose which has been emphasized by the counsel i.e., only with regard to the application dated 10.10.2017 inasmuch as it related to the recall of the Investigating Officer for the purpose of proving some alleged contradictions or omissions which exists in the testimony of the P.W.-2 vis-a-vis his previous statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer. All other aspects of the matter have been not pressed by the counsel.

5. Submission of the counsel for the applicant is that the P.W.-2 namely Chandan Kumar, who was servant of Opposite party no.2, has been examined and cross-examined in the court. He was produced as a witness of fact and he made several statements in the court which were conspicuously not stated or narrated before the Investigating Officer at the time when the statement of P.W.-2 was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Contention is that the omissions were of material importance and were amounting to contradiction and therefore, when P.W.-2 was cross-examined by the counsel, he was confronted with his previous statements given under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in order to impeach his credit. An opportunity was given to P.W.-2 to explain the reason as to why those vital statements were not narrated before the Investigating Officer and opportunity to the witness was granted to say whatever he had to say with regard to those omissions. In response to such cross-examination, the witness did not say anything more than this that he had narrated and stated those facts before the Investigating Officer and he cannot tell the reason as to why the same was not recorded by the Investigating Officer. This was the patent reply of the witness with regard to all those alleged material omissions. Submission is that as per the requirement of Section 145 of Indian Evidence Act, if the previous statement containing the omission which amounted to contraction was to be proved by the Investigating Officer, it was mandatory that the attention of the witness had to be drawn to those parts of the previous statements which were to be used for the purpose of contradicting him. The requirement of Section 145 of Indian Evidence Act were duly complied with during the course of cross-examination by the counsel for defence. Later on when the Investigating Officer was produced as P.W.11, he was also cross-examined by the counsel and many relevant omissions and contradictions were got proved by the counsel. But it so happened that just out of inadvertent slip certain vital omissions and contradictions could not get proved during the course of cross-examination of the Investigating Officer. The case proceeded further and has now reached its final stage of argument. But as it was discovered by the applicant's counsel that certain contradictions have remained unproved and so it was