HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9196 of 2025 Court No. - 14 HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. 1. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Sabih Ahmad, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no. 2 is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record. 3. The present petition has been filed with the following prayer:- "For the facts, circumstances and reasons stated in the petition/application duly supported by an affidavit, it is most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to partly quash the order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate III Lucknow, arising out of Case Crime No. 221/2020, Under Section 506 IPC & ¼ D. P. Act, Oath Commissioner Case No. 33178/2021, (State Versus Damyanti & others), relating to Police Station Madiyanw, District Lucknow, pending in the court of Learned Judicial Magistrate III Lucknow, by means of which the prayed for summoning the Prosecution Witness PW1 i.e. Shiv Bhagwan/Informant for cross examination by the petitioners has been rejected. It is further prayed that during the pendency of the present petition the proceedings of Case Crime No. 221/2020, Under Section 506 IPC & ¼ D. P. Act, Case No. 33178/2021, (State Versus Damyanti & others), relating to Police Station Madiyanw, District Lucknow, pending in the court of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sunil Dixit, Sunil Kumar Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Smt. Damyanti Devi And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) The State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Judicial Magistrate III Lucknow, may kindly be stayed." 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the prosecution of the case in question is a malicious one but the chargesheet dated 06.01.2019 was submitted by the Investigating Officer and thereafter the State Government decided to withdrew the prosecution, which was placed before the learned Magistrate and the same was allowed on 21.05.2024. The said order was challenged by the complainant before the revisional court and revision was allowed by setting aside the order for dropping the prosecution vide order dated 01.10.2024 and matter was remanded for reconsideration. Thereafter, fresh order was passed by the learned Magistrate and the request under Section 321 CrPC was rejected vide order dated 02.01.2025 and an order was passed for examination-in-chief of P.W. 2 on 12.02.2025. He next submitted that on 12.03.2024, P.W. 1 was failed to appear before the court as his examination-in-chief was already conducted, as a result, his cross examination was closed by the learned Magistrate and P.W. 2 was also summoned for cross-examination. 5. Learned counsel for applicants further submits that in the meantime, the accused persons preferred petition before the Hon'ble High Court against the order passed by learned Magistrate by which the application under Section 321 CrPC was rejected. Thereafter, the petition was withdrawn and revision was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge against the order dated 02.01.2025 passed by Magistrate and the revision is pending. In the meantime, cross-examination of P.W. 2 was also closed on 06.08.2025. Thereafter, accused persons/petitioners preferred application dated 18.08.2025 under Section 311 CrPC for recalling P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 for cross-examination but the said application was partly allowed by learned Magistrate by recalling the P.W. 2 with the cost of Rs. 2,000/- and the summoning of P.W. 1 was declined. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that for the purposes of substantial justice, cross-examination of witnesses is necessary, therefore, the impugned order by which the recall of P.W. 1 was rejected may be set aside and application for recall of P.W. 1 may also be allowed for the purposes of cross-examination. A482 No. 9196 of 2025 2 7. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer of applicants and submitted sufficient opportunity was given but deliberately, P.W. 1 was not cross-examined, therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by learned court below. 8. Considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the petition as well as impugned order, it is evident from the record that application was filed for recall of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and the learned court below allowed the application partly by recalling P.W. 2 but the request for recall of P.W. 1 was rejected. It is further evident that it is settled law that cross-examination of the witnesses is necessary for fair trial, this Court is of the view that learned court below wrongly rejected the application of applicant(s) for recall of witness P.W. 1. Accordingly, the order dated 11.09.2025 in relation to rejection of request for recall of P.W. 1 is hereby set aside and application for recall of witness dated 06.02.2025 is allowed. 9. Learned trial court is directed to summon the P.W. 1 for the purposes of cross-examination by giving any specific dated with cost of Rs. 5,000/- 10. With the aforesaid, the application under Section 482 CrPC is allowed. November 7, 2025 Raj A482 No. 9196 of 2025 3 (Rajeev Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench