Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32189 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7498 of 2025 Applicant :- Anil Kumar Agrawal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Niketa Sharma,Rahul Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been preferred against the order dated 15.01.2025, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Hathras, in Complaint Case No.4533 of 2018 (Anil Kumar Agrawal Vs. Vijay Garg and Others), under Sections 418, 323, 504 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Hathras, District- Hathras, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is complainant of the aforesaid case. During trial of the case, applicant has filed original copy of information received under RTI Act from Shri Yogesh Kumar Garg, General Manager (Planning) and Assistant Information Officer. To prove that document, the applicant has filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning of said Yogesh Kumar Garg but the application has arbitrarily been rejected by the learned trial Court. It was submitted that said witness may be summoned at the expenses of applicant. The trial Court has not considered facts of the matter in correct perspective and committed error by rejecting the application filed by the applicant. It was submitted that impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. Section 311 Cr.P.C. empowers the court to summon a material witness, or to examine a person present at "any stage" of "any enquiry", or "trial", or "any other proceedings" under the Cr.P.C., or to summon any person as a witness, or to recall and re-examine any person who has already been examined if his evidence appears to it, to be essential to the arrival of a just decision of the case. Undoubtedly, the Cr.P.C. has conferred a very wide discretionary power upon the court in this respect but such a discretion is to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The power of the court in this context is very wide and in exercise of the same it may summon any person as a witness at any stage of the trial, or other proceedings. The court is competent to exercise such power even suo motu if no such application has been filed by either of the parties. However, the court must satisfy itself, that it was in fact essential to examine such a witness, or to recall him for further examination in order to arrive at a just decision of the case. 7. In the instant matter, it appears from record that applicant is complainant of the aforesaid case and he has filed original copy of information received under Right to Information Act from Information Officer of Indian Oil Corporation Limited. The applicant has filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon Yogesh Kumar Garg, General Manager (Planning and Coordination) to prove that document. Learned trial Court has observed that a similar application was also filed by the applicant while the case was pending at the stage of Section 246 Cr.P.C. but later on the said application was not pressed by the applicant. After statements of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, the said application was filed by applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. It may further be stated that in impugned order, learned trial Court has mentioned that document in question falls within the ambit of 'public document' and there was no necessity to prove the said document by calling any witness. In view of all these facts, the application filed by the applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. It appears that no revision has been filed against the impugned order. The interference under Section 528 Cr.P.C. can only be made when there has been some abuse of the process of Court or in case of grave miscarriage of justice. In the instant matter, no case for invoking powers under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is made out. The application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed. 8. The application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is dismissed. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 'SP'/- Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad