The power to recall a witness is a discretionary tool solely for the essential purposes of a just decision. It cannot be exercised to allow the improvement of testimony or to reopen evidence when a witness has already undergone extensive examination, as this would prejudice the accused's right to a fair trial.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 311 - Power to recall witness - Judicial discretion - Application for further examination-in-chief - Necessary for just decision of the case - Discretion must be exercised to balance the interests of justice without causing undue prejudice to the accused or allowing the reopening of settled testimony recorded at length previously. (Paras 14, 24, 29)

(B) Witness Examination - Recall of witness - Where a witness has already been examined on multiple occasions and the matter was adjourned for cross-examination, the trial court is justified in restricting the scope of recall to cross-examination to prevent the introduction of belated allegations and to ensure adherence to the trial schedule. (Paras 10, 24, 29)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, aggrieved by an order of the trial court, sought to be recalled as a witness to record further examination-in-chief. The petitioner argued that previous statements resulted from an inadequate investigation and were recorded in a language not fully understood by the witness, thereby necessitating a fresh deposition to place complete facts on record. The trial court had granted permission for recall but restricted it to the purpose of cross-examination, citing that the examination-in-chief had already been concluded on two separate occasions.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the lower court exercised its discretion judiciously under the relevant provision. Permitting further examination-in-chief after a significant lapse of time would essentially allow the re-opening of the prosecution case and the introduction of fresh allegations, which would prejudice the accused’s rights. The court emphasized that the power to recall witnesses is not a tool to improve upon or circumvent previously recorded testimony.

Issues: Whether the trial court committed an error in law by restricting the recall of a witness under the Code of Criminal Procedure to the purpose of cross-examination rather than allowing for further examination-in-chief.

Ratio Decidendi: Judicial discretion under the Code must be exercised to achieve the just decision of a case. Allowing extensive further examination-in-chief after a witness has already testified on multiple occasions violates the requirement of a fair trial schedule and introduces unfairness toward the accused by enabling the introduction of belated claims that were absent from earlier records.

Result: Petition dismissed.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 10.04.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 15.04.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 15.04.2026 + CRL.M.C. 2325/2026 & & CRL.M.A. 9469/2026 MEENAKSHI GAUTAM .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sahay with Mr.

Archit Rajput, Advocates.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State with Ms. Puja Mann, Advocate and with SI Chitra, P.S. Prashant Vihar. Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, Ms. Saumya Tiwari and Mr. Bishnu Prasad Tiwari, Advocates for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

1. The present petition has been filed seeking setting aside of the order dated 11.03.2026 [hereafter „impugned order‟] passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-01, Mahila Court, Rohini District Court, New Delhi [hereafter „Trial Court‟] in Criminal Case No. 12832/2025 titled ‘State vs. Sanjay Gautam’, to the extent that the petitioner was not permitted to be recalled for further examination-in-

chief and was allowed to be recalled only for the purpose of cross-

examination.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as put forth by the petitioner, are that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 22.04.2004 in Delhi according to Hindu rites and customs. Out of the said wedlock, a girl child „K‟ was born on 22.10.2005. It is alleged that on 26.12.2006 the petitioner was severely beaten by respondent no. 2, following which the police had reached the spot, rescued the petitioner and had taken her to the hospital. On the same day, the petitioner had lodged a complaint against respondent no. 2 and his family members, pursuant to which FIR No. 312/2006, for commission of offence under Sections 498A /323/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter „IPC‟] was registered at Police Station Mahadevpura, Bangalore. It is further stated that upon learning about the incident, the petitioner‟s father, Sh. K.K. Gautam, and her brother Amit Gautam had reached Bangalore on 27.12.2006. Their statements were recorded by the police; however, according to the petitioner, no effective investigation was carried out thereafter. Since the petitioner had no place to stay in Bangalore and was apprehensive of residing with her in-laws, she left Bangalore along with her minor daughter after informing the police.

3. The petitioner thereafter filed a complaint on 13.03.2007 before the CAW Cell, Nanakpura, New Delhi, narrating the incidents of cruelty and harassment allegedly committed by respondent no. 2 and his family members. However, the said complaint was closed on 21.03.2007 on the ground that an FIR regarding the same incident had already been registered at P.S. Mahadevpura, Bangalore. It is further the case of the petitioner that in January, 2008 the Investigating Officer at Bangalore filed a chargesheet under Sections 498A /323/506 of the IPC against respondent no. 2 and his family members without conducting proper investigation. According to the petitioner, her statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. was not recorded and several incidents relating to cruelty, harassment and dowry demands were omitted from the chargesheet.

4. The petitioner states that on 12.04.2012, her examination-in- chief was recorded before the Court of the learned 10th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore [hereafter „ACMM, Bangalore‟]. It is alleged that the statement was recorded in Kannada language, which the petitioner did not understand, and several material facts and incidents were not properly recorded. Her examination was thereafter conducted on 24.05.2014 also in Kannada. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter „Cr.P.C.‟] on 13.08.2014 seeking further investigation with respect to the incidents of cruelty which, according to her, had been omitted from the chargesheet. The said application was dismissed by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6168

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIMEENAKSHI GAUTAM – AppellantVersusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. – RespondentCRL.M.C.-2325/2026

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MEENAKSHI GAUTAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. – Respondent
CRL.M.C.-2325/2026