CRM-M-22135 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (135) HUSNAIN @RAJA STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR CORAM: Present: ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) 1. 11.03.2023, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., complainant for further cross 2. principle of criminal administration that it is better to release persons than to convict one innocent person. Learned counsel further submits that the ap before the learned trial Court so that the matter could be properly adjudicated. 3. the record. -1- 22135-2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH HUSNAIN @RAJA Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN **** Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Swati Batra, Sr. DAG, Haryana. **** ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11.03.2023, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., inter alia, seeking recall of the victim and the complainant for further cross-examination, has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a cardinal principle of criminal administration that it is better to release persons than to convict one innocent person. Learned counsel further submits that the application ought to have been allowed to unveil the truth before the learned trial Court so that the matter could be properly adjudicated. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-22135-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 23.04.2026 ……Petitioner ……Respondents ALOK JAIN Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Swati Batra, Sr. DAG, Haryana. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11.03.2023, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/accused under , seeking recall of the victim and the , has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a cardinal principle of criminal administration that it is better to release ten guilty persons than to convict one innocent person. Learned counsel further plication ought to have been allowed to unveil the truth before the learned trial Court so that the matter could be properly Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused 23.04.2026 ……Petitioner ……Respondents The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11.03.2023, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/accused under , seeking recall of the victim and the Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a cardinal guilty persons than to convict one innocent person. Learned counsel further plication ought to have been allowed to unveil the truth before the learned trial Court so that the matter could be properly Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused MANJU 2026.04.24 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22135 4. and cross-examined in the year 2024. Subsequently, on 06.03.2026, the application under Section 311 reason for filing previous counsel did not conduct proper cross application did not examination was required to be conducted. application has been filed, and it is a settled princip change of counsel does not entitle a party to recall a witness. 5. the same is dismissed. 6. April 23, 2026 manju Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether Reportable: -2- 22135-2026 (O&M) Admittedly, the victim and the comp examined in the year 2024. Subsequently, on 06.03.2026, the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed (Annexure P reason for filing of the said application is the unsel did not conduct proper cross application did not specified as to what further examination or cross examination was required to be conducted. application has been filed, and it is a settled princip change of counsel does not entitle a party to recall a witness. In light of the above, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. April 23, 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether Reportable:- Yes/No Admittedly, the victim and the complainant were examined examined in the year 2024. Subsequently, on 06.03.2026, the was filed (Annexure P-5), and only said application is the change of counsel and that the unsel did not conduct proper cross-examination. Moreover, the specified as to what further examination or cross- examination was required to be conducted. Since, a vague and evasive application has been filed, and it is a settled principle of law that a mere change of counsel does not entitle a party to recall a witness. In light of the above, finding no merit in the present petition, Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (ALOK JAIN) JUDGE lainant were examined examined in the year 2024. Subsequently, on 06.03.2026, the only change of counsel and that the Moreover, the - vague and evasive le of law that a mere In light of the above, finding no merit in the present petition, MANJU 2026.04.24 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document