IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-1506-2026 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 11.02.2026 Subhash Chand …..Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. KALSON Present:- Mr. Shivam Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Atul Gaur, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

NEERJA K. KALSON, J . (Oral)

1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 03.04.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri whereby the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by the complainant and the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State for recalling DW-1 Parveen Kumar for further cross-examination, was allowed. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present revision petition are as follows :

(i) That the petitioner is the father-in-law of respondent No.2/complainant Manju Bala, who was married to petitioner's son Rohit. Unfortunately, the matrimonial relations between Rohit and Manju were strained, resulting in multiple litigations between the parties. On 05.09.2015, the complainant lodged an FIR No. 148 under Sections 354, 354-A, 354-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 alleging that while she was alone at home, the petitioner (her father-in-law) along with his other son Arvind tried to molest her.

(ii) The said FIR led to the trial proceedings before the learned trial Court. The prosecution led its evidence, and thereafter, the petitioner in his defence examined one Parveen Kumar as DW- 1, the person who had installed the CCTV camera at the petitioner's house. The examination-in-chief of DW-1 Parveen Kumar was recorded, and the cross-examination was deferred on several occasions. Eventually, the cross-examination of DW-1 was concluded.

(iii) Thereafter, the counsel for the complainant appeared before the trial Court and made a statement that certain material questions had been left unasked during the cross-examination of DW-1 and sought permission to re-examine the witness, but the same was declined by the learned trial Court vide order dated

08.03.2018.

(iv) Aggrieved thereby, the complainant filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recalling of DW-1 for further cross-examination. The solitary ground taken in the said application was that the counsel for the complainant could not assist the Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State effectively during the cross-examination of DW-1 Parveen Kumar to extract material relevant for the just decision of the case.

(v) The learned trial Court mistakenly overlooked the fact that it had already declined the same request, without applying its judicial mind and in a mechanical manner, allowed the said application under Section 311 Cr.P..C solely on the basis of the aforementioned ground urged by the complainant.

(vi) Hence, the present revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C.

has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the settled principles of law.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully.

4. It is trite law that, power vested in the Court under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is vast and unfettered, yet the same must be exercised judiciously and with circumspection to meet the ends of justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manan SK Vs. State of West Bengal MANU/SC/0568/2014 has held that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised to fill up the lacunae in the prosecution case or to cause prejudice to the accused by permitting a second innings to the prosecution or complainant. The provision is not meant to be invoked routinely or merely because a counsel feels that some questions have been left unasked by the previous counsel. The trial Court must record a clear finding as to how the further cross-examination is necessary for the just decision of the case after perusing the evidence on record.

5. In the instant case, th