IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

th

ON THE 10 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 17016 of 2024 GEETA PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Vidya Shankar Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.

Smt. Mamta Mishra PL for the respondent/State.

Shri Akhand Pratap Singh - Advocate for the objector through V.C.

ORDER The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “CrPC”) has been filed challenging the order dated 03.08.2023 passed by the learned Trial Court in Sessions Trial No. 3/14, whereby the application filed by the prosecution as well as accused/respondent No.2 under Section 311 CrPC were allowed and in the application filed by the respondent No.2, PW-2 Satyanarayan was directed to be recalled for further examination. The petitioner has no grievance with part of order whereby an application under section 311 of Cr.P.C filed by the prosecution has been allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that during the pendency of the trial, the prosecution moved an application under Section 311 CrPC seeking permission to produce certain documents. Initially, the application did not specify the name of the witness through whom the documents were to be proved. The learned Trial Court allowed the application and directed the prosecution to file a fresh application specifying the witness. In the meantime, the accused/respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C seeking recall of PW-2 Satyanaraya for further examination. The said application has also been allowed and PW-2 Satyanarayan was directed to be recalled for further examination.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that PW-2 Satyanarayan had already been examined and cross-examined. An earlier application under Section 311 CrPC for recalling the same witness filed by the prosecution had been dismissed on 15.11.2014 on the ground that there are no ambiguities in his statement.. The impugned order amounts to filling lacunae in the prosecution case. He further argued that the trial court committed error to permit the re-examination/ cross-examination of the prosecution witness after passing huge time of 9 years.

4. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent No. 2 opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner submitting that, the trial Court has rightly exercised its discretionary power to reach the just decision of the case. There is necessity to re-examine the aforesaid witness to test credibility and truthfulness as his earlier statement filled with material contradiction omissions. The said witness also introduced a new fact in his court statement. There is no comparison between the application filed by the prosecution for recalling the said witness which has been dismissed, and application filed by the respondent No. 2.

5. Counsel for the respondent No.1/State has supported the petitioner submitting that the accused/respondent No. 2 filed such application just to delay the trial.

6. Heard the contentions of all the parties.

7. The only point for consideration before this Court is that whether the learned Trial Court committed illegality in allowing the application under Section 311 CrPC and recalling PW-2. 8. Section 311 CrPC reads as under :

“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 re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.”

9. On careful reading of aforesaid Section, this Court finds that the scope of Section 311 CrPC is very wide and object of the provision is to enable the Court to arrive at the truth and render a just decision.

10. In the case of Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar, (