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

th

ON THE 4 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 49609 of 2024 AMBIKESH DWIVEDI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Ms. Namrata K. Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Devendra Shukla - Advocate for respondent/State.

ORDER The petitioner has filed present petition under Section 528 of the th BNSS/482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 13.09.24 passed by 5 Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rewa District Rewa in S.T. No.247/2017, whereby his application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected and also order dated 01.09.2023 whereby his right to cross-

examine PW-1 (Bhanu Pratap Singh) has been closed.

2. The concise account of the case are that on 10.05.2016 at about 11:15 pm complainant/injured Bhanu Pratap Singh was assaulted by Sanjay Dwivedi @ Rock, Pranshu Tiwari, Ambikesh Dwivedi, Rahul Singh and Brijendra Singh. It is also alleged that Sanjay Dwivedi @ Rock and Ambikesh Dwivedi fired upon the complainant on account of which he suffered firearm injury on his abdomen. An FIR was registered at P.S. Saman, District Rewa for offences punishable U/s 307, 34 of IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act against the petitioner and other co-accused persons. After investigation, the charge sheet has been filed before the competent Court. Statement of witnesses were recorded. The complainant Bhanu Pratap Singh was examined as PW-1 and his examination-in-chief was completed on 16.08.2023. On the said date the counsel so appointed on behalf of the petitioner died in a road accident as such time was taken on his behalf and the matter was fixed for cross-examination on 01.09.2023. On 01.09.2023, cross-examination on behalf of Sanjay Dwivedi @ Rock, Pranshu Tiwari and Rahul Singh was completed by their counsel. Thereafter, the petitioner changed his counsel and engaged Shri Anil Dwivedi Advocate as his counsel. However, since Anil Dwivedi Advocate was not in town on the said date, therefore, Vakalatnama was filed by his juniors. A prayer was made to defer the cross- examination on account of non availability of newly engaged counsel, however, the learned Court below dismissed the prayer and closed the right to cross-examine the complainant/ injured Bhanu Pratap Singh (PW-1).

3. The petitioner filed an application to recall the witness/complainant- Bhanu Pratap Singh (PW-1) but said application was rejected by trial Court vide order dated 13.09.2024 by observing that the petitioner is not a bonafide in filing the application and he has filed the application for causing delay in trial.

4. It is submitted that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of previous enmity. PW-1 is complainant/ injured and is a star witness of the case. In absence of any cross-examination on behalf of the petitioner, his statement in examination-in-chief would be accepted as gospel truth, which would result in miscarriage of justice as the same have not been tested on the touchstone of cross examination. The main object of cross-examination is to find out the truth and detection of falsehood in human testimony. The exercise of this right to cross-examination is justly regarded as one of the most efficacious tests which the law has devised for the discovery of truth. While considering an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C, the Court should bear in mind that fair trial entails the interest of the accused, the victim and the society and, therefore, the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the persons concerned, must be ensured being a constitutional goal, as well as a human right. It is further submitted that the trial Court failed to consider the fact that while dismissing the application under 311 the Court has to bear in mind the essentiality of evidence for just decision of the case. Hence, it is prayed that the orders dated 13.09.2024 and th

01.09.2023 passed by the 5 Additional Dist