THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the order dated 11.07.2025 passed in Crl.M.P. No.2218 of 2024 in CC No.11 of 2024 (old CC No.43 of 2016) on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yadadri, wherein the said application for recalling PWs.4 and 10 for further cross examination, was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri Y. Shashidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that before the trial court, the defence counsel has failed to put-forth certain relevant questions to PW.4-circumstantial witness and 10- Investigating Officer, during the course of cross-examination and thus, now the petitioner intended to recall the said witnesses, but the trial court has dismissed the said petition depriving the right of the petitioner. He further submitted that the trial court ought to have allowed the petition to provide ample opportunity to the petitioner to raise his defence, therefore, much prejudice is caused to the petitioner and hence, prayed to set aside the impugned order and allow the petition to recall PWs.4 and 10 for further cross-examination.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition, submitting that the said witnesses were already cross- examined at length and that recalling them is not required and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner contending that while cross-examining PW.4, the counsel before the trial court has omitted some material questions due to oversight and that he failed to confront the witness with the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He also contended that the Investigating Officer, who is examined as PW.10 may also be recalled as he recorded the statements of PW.4 to confront the said statements. The prosecution has also filed counter and opposed the petition. It is contended in their counter that the prosecution has advanced the final arguments and thereafter the defence counsel has filed the petition under Section 311 CrP.C., to recall the eye-witness and the Investigating Officer. It is further borne out by record that the prosecution evidence was closed and that ample opportunity was given by the court to the petitioner- accused for cross examination of the witnesses. The copies of the depositions are also filed along with the present petition. A perusal of the same reveals that both the witnesses were cross examined at length.

7. Further, the trial court has also discussed the case law relied upon by the petitioner in Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana and extracted the relevant paragraph. In the said decision, it was held that recalling of witnesses is not mandatory and it can be exercised judiciously and discretionary power is vested with the court and that when the witnesses are cross-examined, they need not be recalled casually. A person already examined can be re- examined only when they are expected to be able to throw light upon the matter in dispute.

8. In the present case, the said witnesses are already cross examined at length and there are no such new facts to be brought into light. The contradictions or omissions, if any, that are relevant, can be argued before the trial court. Hence, the trial court was

2025 INSC 416 right in dismissing the petition. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court and hence, the same is upheld.

9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA November 04, 2025 KTL