AKASH VERMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge has been made to the order dated 20/8/2019 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, whereby an application under Sec. 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code') filed by the petitioners for recalling two witnesses has been dismissed.

(2.) In brief, the facts as stated are that the petitioners herein came to be falsely accused in FIR No. 190 dated 29/4/2017 under Ss. 120-B, 376-D and 506 IPC at Police Station City Tohana, District Fathehbad. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Sec. 164 of the Code on 30/4/2017. During the course of proceedings before the trial court, the matter was compromised on 18/1/2018 between the complainant and the accused, whereby the parties agreed to solemnise a marriage of the complainant with one of the accused, namely Aashish Kumar. One of the terms of the compromise was that the complainant shall try to secure the release of all the accused. Thereafter, regular bail of the accused was allowed. It is stated that the prosecution witnesses that is Dr.Veena Batra and Inspector Maju Singh were examined by the prosecution, however on account of the compromise entered into between the parties, they could not be cross-examined at length. It is also argued that as the compromise between the parties could not be effected, an application was preferred under Section 311 of the Code by the complainant for re-examining herself and for recalling the other 2 witnesses, namely her mother and father, which was allowed. The trial court by order dated 7.8.2018 directed for recalling the witnesses and recording the statements afresh. This order was unsuccessfully challenged before this Court and the Supreme Court.

(3.) Mr. Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that PW5 Dr Veena Batra and PW6 Inspector Maju Singh were examined as witnesses on 06.03.2018, whereby the application for recalling of the witnesses by the trial court was allowed on 07.08.2018, that is subsequent to the cross-examination having being conducted. It is argued that the cross examination that was conducted was not proper, as on date there was a compromise in effect. It is argued that Section 311 of the Code would permit recalling of a witness at any stage of the case and therefore the impugned order declining recalling of the said witnesses is not sustainable.