Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83248 Court No. - 85 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2023 of 2024 Revisionist :- Habib Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 3. The present revision has been filed challenging the order dated 05.02.2024 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Sant Kabir Nagar has rejected an application (19-Kha) filed by the applicant under Section 311 CrPC with a prayer to recall victim of offence under Sections 376, 504, 506 IPC for re- examination. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that certain questions in relation to the statement made by the victim under Section 164 CrPC could not be asked and that the applicant is ready to deposit necessary expenses for re-examination of the victim and, therefore, the court should allow the application under Section 311 CrPC. 5. Learned AGA vehemently opposed the revision and submits that five questions proposed to be asked by the applicant after recall of the witness PW-1 were thoroughly irrelevant and the court has considered the weight of those questions and has found no substance in the application and, therefore, no interference is warranted. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, the Court finds that sessions trial is pending since 2022. Recording of statement of PW-1 began on 28.03.2023 and ended on 12.07.2023. The applicant attempted to put five questions from the victim, after her recall, as regards the injuries allegedly suffered by her and the relationship in between the victim and the accused. Learned Sessions Judge has taken up every question proposed to be asked while passing the order impugned and has found no substance therein with reference to the medical report as well as allegations levelled in the FIR and consistency maintained by the victim in her statement under Section 164 CrPC. 7. Power under Section 311 CrPC is discretionary inasmuch as it is for the court concerned to exercise such power for summoning of a person as a witness or recall or re-examination of any person already examined. Word 'may' used in Section 311 CrPC in place of word 'shall' makes it clear that whenever the court considers a case to be a fit one to exercise such powers, it may exercise the same but when sufficient grounds do not exist for exercising such power, the court is well within its power to reject application under Section 311 CrPC. 8. In the instant case, having considered the discussion made by the learned Sessions Judge as regards five questions proposed to be asked by the applicant, this Court does not find any error in the view taken by the learned court concerned. 9. Revisional jurisdiction under Section 397/401 CrPC is confined to test the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order and, in the facts of the present case, the order impugned does not suffer from any illegality or even jurisdictional error. The revision has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 19.5.2025 AKShukla/- Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad