The power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised judiciously and for strong and valid reasons, ensuring a fair trial and the just decision of the case.

JUDGMENT :

Manju Rani Chauhan, J.

1. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Deepak Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the order dated 03.09.2021 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sambhal at Chandausi in S.T. No. 70 of 2019 (State Vs. Devendra Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No.662 of 2017, under sections 344, 376D, 354, 323, 504, 506, 115, 34 IPC, Police Station-Hayatnagar, District-Sambhal by which the application under section 311 Cr.P.C. moved by the applicant has been rejected.

3. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged on 22.12.2017 by the applicant against as many as five persons under Sections 344, 376D, 354, 323, 506, 115, 34 IPC, Police Station-Hayatnagar, District-Sambhal. After recording the statements of the victim/applicant under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the charge sheet has been submitted, pursuant to which, the trial court has proceeded to record the statement of victim/applicant, who has been examined as P.W.-1. Subsequently, on 03.09.2021, the applicant/victim has filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. before the trial court to summon her for giving further evidence with respect to certain photographs and documents, which were necessary for proper adjudication of the case. However, the said application has been rejected by the concerned court below vide order dated 03.09.2021 on the ground that the statement of the applicant/victim has already been recorded on 25.02.2020 and all the evidences are available on record. The victim has also been cross-examined, hence the said application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been moved only to delay the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order dated 03.09.2021 by which the application moved under section 311 Cr.P.C. was rejected by the court below, has been passed in a mechanical manner without applying judicious mind. The reason assigned in the application under section 311 Cr.P.C. is that it is necessary to take some photographs and documents on record, which shows that the applicant/victim was kidnapped by the accused as they are necessary for proper adjudication of the trial, but the same has not been considered while rejecting the application.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State-respondent submits that the statement of the applicant/victim has already been recorded on 25.02.2020, therefore, the applicant has moved the application under section 311 Cr.P.C. on 03.09.2021 only with a view to delay the disposal of the trial. The court below has not committed any error in passing the impugned order, therefore, it does not call for any interference by this Court. Hence, he submits that the present application is liable to be rejected.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the present application.

7. Before fathoming correctness of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it will be worthwhile to refer to Section 311 Cr.P.C., which reads as under:-

"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 reexamine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case."

8. Assiduous scrutiny of aforesaid provision clearly suggests that court enjoys vast power to summon any person as a witness or recall and re-examine a witness, provided, same is essentially required for just decision of the case. Moreover, such exercise of power can be at any