ORDER

1. With consent heard finally.

2. By this petition preferred under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioner/accused has challenged the order dated 29.11.2023 passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Sessions Trial No.2021/2022 whereby it has rejected an application under section 311 of the Cr.P.C filed by him for re-recording the statement of the complainant Tejpal and injured Muskan before the Court.

3. The facts in brief are that an FIR was lodged by the complainant to the effect that about six months ago he had sold 33 bighas of land to co-accused Sonu Maharaj for a consideration of Rs.4.00 Crores. Against the transaction an amount of Rs.3,10,000/- only was paid. On 4.6.2022 at 2.30 PM when the complainant along with his wife Muskan, brother Mahipal and grand-mother Bhavan Kunwar were at the house build on their field, the accused persons including the petitioner came with a JCB machine and broke the boundary gate. Co-accused Sonu told them to vacate the field else they would put the complainant party to death. Thereafter there was altercation between both the parties and on direction of co-accused Sonu, co-accused Tarun put a Katta near the head of the complainant while the other co-accused caught hold of Mahipal and thereafter they directed the JCB operator to demolish the house. In the incident co-accused Sonu Maharaj pushed Bhagwan Kunvar on the field and kicked Muskan in her abdomen and sprinkled kerosene oil on her and set her on fire. Accused persons then left the place after threatening the complainant party with life.

4. On lodging of the FIR, investigation was commenced by the police during course of which statements of witnesses were recorded and the accused were arrested. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused and the trial is pending before the trial Court.

5. During course of proceedings before the trial Court, statements of complainant Tejpal and injured Muskan, wife of Tejpal were recorded before the Court in which they did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. Thereafter on 13.10.2023 an application under section 311 of the Cr.P.C was filed by the complainant and injured Muskan for permitting them to re-record their evidence before the Court submitting that the accused are influential persons and had given inducement and had exercised pressure upon them stating that they shall get sale deed of the land in dispute executed in favour of one Ghanshyam. An agreement was also executed between the parties in that regard. It is as a result of such inducement that the complainant and injured Muskan had turned hostile before the trial Court but thereafter the accused got sale deed executed only of part of the land and not in entirety. Even after recording of their statements the accused are not executing the sale deed hence they want to bring the real factual position before the Court and want their statements to be re-recorded.

6. The application has been rejected by the trial Court by the impugned order by holding that merely because as per the compromise entered into between the parties the sale deed was not executed by the accused, it would not be expedient to recall the complainant and injured Muskan for rerecording of their statements.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M-42890-2022 (O & M) Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. decided on 26.5.2023 to submit that in view of the facts stated by the petitioner in his application the same ought to have been allowed. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order submitting that there is no infirmity in the same.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. In Surjit Singh (Supra) it has been laid down as under :-

“11 ….The touchstone for exercise of powers under section 311 of the Code, is the satisfaction of t