A witness cannot be recalled for further cross-examination under Section 311 Cr.P.C. if the party had sufficient opportunity and completed the cross-examination voluntarily, without demonstrating a genuine necessity or prejudice.

Order

1. By way of this instant Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.08.2022 passed by learned Additional Session Judge No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan-II in Criminal Revision No.39/2022 (CIS No.381/2022) whereby the learned Revisional Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 13.04.2022, passed by the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.12, Jaipur Metropolitan-II in Criminal Case No.5790/2018 whereby application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. read with Section 21 of Legal Service Authority Act, 1987 filed on behalf of the petitioner to summon the complainant of this case for further cross-examination was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for recalling the complainant for further cross-examination in a highly mechanical and arbitrary manner, without appreciating the factual matrix and the peculiar circumstances of the case.

3. It is contended that the matter was amicably settled between the parties before the Lok Adalat, wherein a lawful compromise was arrived at. In pursuance of the said compromise, the petitioner has already paid a substantial portion of the settled amount to the complainant. However, due to the unprecedented circumstances arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner could not adhere to the exact timeline for payment of certain instalments as stipulated in the compromise.

4. Learned counsel further submits that when the petitioner subsequently approached the complainant with the remaining amount and expressed his readiness and willingness to honour the compromise in its entirety, the complainant refused to accept the same. Not only did the complainant decline to receive the balance amount, but he also failed to return the amount already received by him under the compromise. In order to demonstrate his bona fides and continued commitment to the settlement, the petitioner deposited the demand draft before the learned Trial Court.

5. It is further argued that once the dispute stood settled before the Lok Adalat, compelling the petitioner to proceed with the cross-examination of the complainant was contrary to the very spirit and object of the compromise. The petitioner was thus placed in a difficult and prejudicial position and was left with no real option but to conduct the cross-examination in haste. As a result, the petitioner could not effectively put the true and relevant facts on record or confront the complainant on material aspects arising out of the compromise.

6. In these facts and circumstances, learned counsel submits that recalling the complainant for further cross-examination is essential for a just, fair, and proper adjudication of the case, and denial of such opportunity would cause grave prejudice to the petitioner and result in miscarriage of justice.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel. He contended that ample and sufficient opportunities were granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant. It is further submitted that a perusal of the record clearly demonstrates that the complainant was cross-examined at length and, therefore, no case for recalling the complainant is made out. He further submits that the application seeking further cross-examination is nothing but an attempt to delay the proceedings and same has been