Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:101042 Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 20186 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt. Soniya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anjali Singh Tomer,Gaurav Singh Tomar,Inder Pal Singh Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashok Kumar Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri I.P.S.Tomar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shashi Dhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant application has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 17-05-2025 as well as entire proceedings of S.T. No. 3005 of 2023, arising out of case crime no. 218 of 2023 (State of U.P. Vs. Ankit @ Akash & Others), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504, 506 and 120-B IPC and 3/27 Arms Act, P.S. Gonda, district Aligarh. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 17.05.2025 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Aligarh, rejecting the applicant's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C./348 B.N.S.S. in S.T. No. 3005 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 218 of 2023, is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and against the settled principles of law. It is argued that the application was filed to summon and recall the medical expert (Doctor) who had conducted the post mortem examination of the deceased Narendra Kumar, as his cross-examination is crucial under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to ensure a fair and just trial. It is further contended that the post mortem report, being a scientific document prepared by an expert, cannot be read in evidence unless the expert is examined and made available for cross-examination. It is also pointed out that there were procedural irregularities during the investigation, including delay in lodging the F.I.R. and sending it to the Magistrate, late recording of witness statements, and possible tampering of blood-stained samples. In light of these infirmities, non-recalling of the doctor would result in grave prejudice to the applicant and defeat the cause of justice. 4. Per contra, Sri Shashi Dhar Pandey, learned A.G.A., opposed the prayer and submitted that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C./348 B.N.S.S. was rightly rejected by the learned trial court after due consideration of the stage of trial and available material. He submitted that the applicant has not demonstrated any valid reason or prejudice which necessitated recalling of the medical expert. He further submitted that number of prosecution witnesses have already been examined, and the application was filed only to delay the trial proceedings. The order passed by the trial court is reasoned and requires no interference under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the trial is at an advanced stage and recalling of the medical expert, who has already submitted the post mortem report, was considered and declined by the trial court on valid and legal grounds. The reasons cited by the applicant for recalling the said witness appear to be vague and do not establish that denial of the application would lead to miscarriage of justice. Moreover, the applicant will have ample opportunity during trial to bring forth any inconsistencies through the cross-examination of the other witnesses and may rely on expert opinion under proper legal recourse, if required. 7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918, R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192, and lastly, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 has held that only those cases in which no prima facie case is made out can be considered in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. The instant application does not fall under the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments mentioned above, and followed in a number of matters. Moreover, the facts as alleged cannot be said that, prima facie, no offence is made out against the applicant. It is only after the evidence and trial, it can be seen as to whether the offence, as alleged, has been committed or not. 9. However, it is always open for the applicant to raise all his legal and factual defences before the trial court at an appropriate stage in accordance with law. 10. Hence, the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 pks Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad