Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33176 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5476 of 2025 Applicant :- Veerendra And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Gupta learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Moti Lal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The applicant herein has filed the present application u/s 528 of the B.N.S.S. against the impugned judgment order and dated 13.01.2025 passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge / Fast Track Second, Etah, in Sessions No.89 2012 of (State of arising out of case crime Court- Trial Uttar Pradesh Vs. Veerendra and others) no. 109 of 2011, under Section 306 of the I.P.C. Police Station- Jaithara, District Etah, whereby the Learned Trial Court has been pleased to application reject the preferred by the No.152-B, applicants, for recalling PW-1 Sri Rameshwar (First Informant) and for cross examining him under the exercise of powers under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that first information report stood lodged by the opposite party no.2 against the applicants on 17.4.2011 being Case Crime No.109 of 2012, under Sections 498A of the IPC relatable to the commission of the offences on 15.4.2011 wherein the daughter of the first informant was done to death by the applicants by virtue of demand to dowry. He further submits that an application stood preferred by the applicants on 13.1.2025 supported by an affidavit for recalling of the PW-1, however, the said application came to be rejected by the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Second, Etah on 13.1.2025. He also submits that the application so preferred under Section 311 of the IPC for recalling the witnesses was liable to be allowed for the simple reason that in the affidavit so accompanied with the said application grounds were also mentioned and in case the said application is not allowed then it would be travesty of justice particularly when the counsel was engaged did not ask relevant questions. 4. Learned AGA on the other hand has opposed the present application while contending that including the PW1 statements of prosecution witnesses have also been examined and the application is being sought to be preferred under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. at the stage of the Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. as a dilatory tactics. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and I am of the opinion that the applicants are not entitled to any relief particularly at this stage once the prosecution witnesses including PW1 totally six in number have already been examined and stage under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has arrived, moreover, there is nothing in the application/affidavit showing any cogent reasons for recalling the witnesses except dilatory tactics. 6. In view of above, the present application under section 528 of the B.N.S.S. stands rejected. Order Date :- 7.3.2025 piyush Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad