IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA

rd

ON THE 23 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 25602 of 2024 SANTOSH KUSHWAHA Versus SATISH YADAV Appearance:

Shri Vidya Prasad - Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. C.Veda Rao - Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER This petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved of order dated 29.05.2024 passed by the JMFC, Jabalpur (M.P.) in Complaint Case No.4912519/2015 whereby application under Section 311 of CrPC filed by the complainant (respondent herein) for examination of witness has been allowed.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that the trial is pending since the year 2015. During the course of trial, the right of the complainant to lead evidence was closed on 07.03.2024. Thereafter, the complainant filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to examine a witness from UCO Bank which was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 29.05.2024.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court had already completed the proceedings and fixed the matter for orders.

Allowing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. at such a belated stage amounts to filling up lacunae. The impugned order is arbitrary, illegal, and an abuse of the process of court, warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that Section 311 Cr.P.C. empowers the court to summon any witness at any stage if it is necessary for the just decision of the case. The trial Court has exercised its discretion judiciously. No prejudice is caused to the petitioner, as full opportunity of cross-examination has been granted. Therefore, she prays for dismissal of the petition.

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

6. Section 311 Cr.P.C. confers wide discretionary powers upon the court to summon or recall any witness at any stage of inquiry, trial, or other proceedings if such evidence appears to be essential for the just decision of the case. The object of this provision is to enable the court to arrive at the truth and to render a just decision. In the present case, the learned Trial Court has recorded reasons and found that the evidence of the bank witness is essential for proper adjudication of the matter. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any grave prejudice or miscarriage of justice caused by the impugned order.

7. It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in cases of patent illegality or abuse of process of court. The impugned order does not suffer from perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court.

8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

(B. P. SHARMA)

JUDGE L.Raj