PRADEEP SHIVHARE Vs. YASH KUMAR GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not wish to challenge the order dated 6/7/19 in view of bar contained on Clause (7), Chapter 10 of High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cheque given by the petitioner by way of security has been presented by the complainant on 19/4/18 before the Bank after filling up an amount of Rs.25 lacs thereon. However, cross-examination of the complainant was over on 4/1/2018. As such, this being a subsequent development, petitioner was not in a position to cross-examine the complainant on that count. It is also noteworthy that dispute between petitioner and the complainant has been going on for last two years and, therefore, it is highly improbable that under such circumstances a cheque of Rs.25 lacs would have been given by the applicant to the complainant. It is, accordingly, submitted that rejection of application under section 311, Cr.P.C seeking re-crossexamination of the complainant for the aforesaid reasons has resulted in miscarriage of justice. It is crystal clear that under section 311 of Cr.P.C., the Court has been empowered to summon a witness at any stage of an inquiry, trial or other proceeding. The power is not confined to a particular class of persons. It is also settled in law that if all the conditions under this section are satisfied, the Court can call the witnesses not only on the motion of either prosecution or defence, but also it can do so on its own motion. It is further submitted that power of a Court to recall any witness or witnesses already examined or to summon any witness, can be invoked even if evidence of both sides is closed so long as the Court retains seisin of the criminal proceedings.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order passed by the trial Court and submits that the findings recorded therein being cogent, no interference is warranted therewith.