Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:55091 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 12387 of 2025 Applicant :- Shyama Kant Tewari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sr. Advocate,Vaibhav Shandilya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Vivek Shandilya, learned Senior Advocate Assisted by Sri Vaibhav Shandilya, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The applicant, by means of this application has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the order dated 03.03.2025 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Jhansi in S.T. No. 759 of 2024 (State Vs. Shyama Kant Tewari), arising out of Case Crime no. 556 of 2023, under Section 307 I.P.C. and Section 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Mauranipur, District Jhansi, by which the application moved by at the behest of applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to recall PW-1 and PW-2 and permit him to cross-examine them, has been rejected. 3. There is no dispute about the fact that the applicant has already cross examined PW-1 and PW-2 during trial. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that in any case, looking into the nature of serious offence alleged and the key role in the trial to be played by the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 and the applicant ought to have been granted one opportunity to cross- examine PW-1 and PW-2. Learned counsel for applicant further undertakes not to seek further cross-examination of any prosecution witnesses. 5. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer sought through the instant application and submitted that applicant had already availed such opportunity and as such, no further opportunity may be granted. 6. Learned counsel for applicant placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in the case of G.R.Gulati Vs. State of U.P. & another, 2014 (3) JIC 729 (Alld), wherein in paragraphs 6 and 9 it has been held as below: "6. .....There is a duty cast upon the court to arrive at the truth by all lawful means and one of such means is the examination of witnesses of its own accord when for certain obvious reasons either party is not prepared to call witnesses who are known to be in a position to speak important relevant facts. ... ... 9. .....The prompt decision of criminal case is to be commended and encouraged but in reaching at these results, the accused, who are charged with a serious offence, must not be stripped of his valuable right of a fair and impartial trial because it would be negation of concept of due process of law. Regardless of the merits of the case, the court has not only to look into the case of the prosecution but has also to keep in mind the defence version." 7. Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties and looking into the gravity of the offence for which the applicant has been charged and to balance the scale of justice, order dated 03.03.2025 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Jhansi in S.T. No. 759 of 2024 (State Vs. Shyama Kant Tewari), arising out of Case Crime no. 556 of 2023, under Section 307 I.P.C. and Section 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Mauranipur, District Jhansi, is hereby quashed. Applicant be allowed one date opportunity to cross-examine PW-1 and PW-2 and learned trial court will summon PW-1 and PW-2 for cross- examination on the date fixed and the witness will be cross- examined on the same day positively. 8. In view thereof, the instant application is allowed. Order Date :- 15.4.2025 Vivek Kr. Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad