IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rajvinder Singh ....Petitioner V/s Amarjeet Bama ....Respondent Date of decision: 27.01.2026 Date of Uploading : 27.01.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Karanbir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

None for the respondent.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 26.11.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana whereby the application filed by the petitioner (herein) - accused, under Section 348 of BNSS, 2023 seeking recall and further cross-examination of CW-1, was dismissed

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the Court below has erred in dismissing the application filed under Section 348 of BNSS, seeking recall and further cross-examination of CW-1. Learned counsel has further iterated that the complainant is the sole material witness and denial of further cross-examination has caused serious prejudice to the defence. Learned counsel has argued that the cross-examination was closed without recording any finding of willful default on the part of the accused- petitioner which has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. According to learned counsel, the impugned order is ex facie unsustainable in law, being based on mere presumptions and conjectures. It has been further iterated that denial of further cross-examination has resulted in grave prejudice to the defence and that recall was necessary for a just decision of the case. It has been further contended by learned counsel that the impugned order is cryptic and devoid of merit and thus, deserves to be set-aside. On the strength of aforesaid submissions, the grant of petition in hand is entreated for.

3. Office note indicates that service has been effected upon the respondent. However, none has caused appearance on his behalf.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the available record.

5. It would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by this Court in case titled as Karamjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and another: 2024 NCPHHC 24178; relevant whereof reads as under:-

“8.4 As an epilogue to the above rumination, the following principles emerge:

(I) The broad gamut for exercising power by a criminal trial Court under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. are as follows:

(i) The prime factor for considering a plea under Section 311 of Cr,.P.C. is as to whether such evidence “appears to be essential to the just decision of the case.”

(ii) Section 311 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked by a criminal trial Court even when cross-examination of a witness has earlier been foreclosed by a Court order. Such exercise of power by the Court cannot be construed as the concerned Court recalling/reviewing its own order.

(iii) Section 311 of Cr.P.C. empowers a criminal trial Court to even allow further examination/cross-examination of a witness at instance of the prosecution/accused.

(iv) A criminal Court is well within, its judicial discretion, to summon any person as a witness at any stage of proceedings/trial etc. till such Court is seized of the matter.

(v) A criminal trial Court may exercise power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. on an application made by a party to lis or on its own volition.

(vi) Successive application(s) for summoning same witness for examination/re-examination is not debarred but such a plea deserves to be dealt with exercising a higher degree of circumspection.

(II) No straight jacket formulae can be enumerated regarding mode, manner and extent of exercise of power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C by a criminal trial Court as every case has its own unique facts/circumstances. It is neither possible nor pragmatic to lay down any such exhaustive guide-lines as every case is sui generis in terms of factual conspectus.

(III) Needless to say that exercise of power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. by a criminal trial Court should be undertaken by according cogent and lucid reasons, in accord