ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. I.A. No.2612 of 2026 Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory application has been filed for early hearing of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. Since, the hearing of this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application stands disposed of being infructuous. Cr.M.P. No.2779 of 2025 This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the order dated 25.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV, Ranchi in Criminal Revision No.58 of 2025 whereby and where under the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV, Ranchi has dismissed the said Criminal Revision which was filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No.3552 of 2024 arising out of G.R. Case No.2290 of 2020 whereby and where under the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi rejected the prayer of the prosecution to examine the son of the informant namely Krishna Kumar Sharma on the ground that he is not the eye-witness to the occurrence nor is he the witness cited in the charge-sheet. 2. The brief fact of the case is that the prosecution filed a petition before the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi mentioning therein that though Krishna Kumar Sharma is not cited as a witness in the charge-sheet but his examination is necessary in the interest of justice, hence, the prayer was made for his examination as a witness. The learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi considered that the offences involved in the trial was punishable under Section 341, 323, 448, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. From the evidence of the five witnesses already examined by the prosecution, it appeared to the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi that Krishna Kumar Sharma is not the eye-witness to the occurrence but he is a hearsay witness; as the informant after coming to his home, narrated about the occurrence to Krishna Kumar Sharma. Hence, it appeared to the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi that Krishna Kumar Sharma is not a material witness. So, the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi did not allow the prayer and rejected the same. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No.58 of 2025. Hence, it appeared to the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi that Krishna Kumar Sharma is not a material witness. So, the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi did not allow the prayer and rejected the same. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No.58 of 2025. The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV, Ranchi relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sethuraman vs. Raja Manickam reported in (2009) 5 SCC 153 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that the order passed by the learned trial court refusing to call the documents and rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was an interlocutory order and such revision against said order is barred under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. Similar, is the view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hanuman Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Others reported in AIR 2009 SC 69 and the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV, Ranchi went on to hold that the Criminal Revision is not maintainable and dismissed the same. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P. Sanjeeva Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2012) 7 SCC 56 wherein it was held that denying the right to recall a witness for cross-examination merely because the trial is at its end causes prejudice to the accused. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the case of Hanuman Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (supra) it was held that the object underlying Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to prevent failure of justice on account of a mistake of either party to bring on record valuable evidence or leaving an ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses and in para-21 therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgment in the case of Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs. Union of India reported in 1991 Supp (1) SCC 271 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the settled principle of law that the criminal court has ample power to summon any person as a witness or recall and re-examine any such person even if the evidence on both sides is closed and the jurisdiction of the court must obviously be dictated by exigency of the situation, and fair play and good sense appear to be the only safe guides and that only the requirements of justice command and examination of any person which would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi failed to appreciate the fact that the witness sought to be examined namely Krishna Kumar Sharma is the son of the informant and his statement in the instant matter is of much significance as this witness is well aware of the factual aspect and Krishna Kumar Sharma is an accused of the counter-case, therefore, the significance and relevance of the witnesses cannot be ruled out. It is further submitted that the testimony of the witness namely Krishna Kumar Sharma is required for the proper adjudication of the instant case, hence, the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi ought to have allowed the prayer. Therefore, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed. 6. Learned Spl. P. P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submit that nowhere the prosecution has stated that what evidence the prosecution intends to adduce through Krishna Kumar Sharma. 6. Learned Spl. P. P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submit that nowhere the prosecution has stated that what evidence the prosecution intends to adduce through Krishna Kumar Sharma. The undisputed fact remains that the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. which corresponds to Section 180 of the B.N.S.S., of the said Krishna Kumar Sharma has not been recorded. The undisputed fact further remains that though the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi has in categorical terms mentioned in the impugned order that the said Krishna Kumar Sharma sought to be examined as a witness, is not an eye-witness to the occurrence; yet the same has remained uncontroverted. The observations of the learned trial court that as per the evidence that has already come on record through other witnesses examined by the prosecution; Krishna Kumar Sharma came to know about the occurrence only after hearing about the same from the informant. So, at best, he is a hearsay witness and in the facts of this case as discussed above, his testimony is not admissible in evidence. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi in rejecting the prayer of the prosecution to examine Krishna Kumar Sharma as a witness of the prosecution as the same was unnecessary and uncalled for and only a tactic to delay the disposal of the criminal case and linger the same. It is next submitted that the undisputed fact remains that the order passed by the court in rejecting the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., is an interlocutory order, hence, a criminal revision is barred under Section 397 (2) of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV, Ranchi in dismissing the Criminal Revision as not maintainable. It is then submitted that as has rightly been mentioned by the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi herself that the examination of Krishna Kumar Sharma as a witness and the evidence sought to adduced is not essential to the just decision of the case and therefore as for cogent reason, the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi has rejected the same, so, the ratio of Hanuman Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case and the same is the position of law so far as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs. Union of India (supra) is concerned. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ratanlal vs. Prahlad Jat & Others reported in (2017) 9 SCC 340 has held that power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must be exercised with caution and circumspection and only for strong and valid reasons. 8. Now, coming to the facts of the case; it is not forthcoming as to what evidence the prosecution intends to bring on record by examining Krishna Kumar Sharma. Nowhere, the same has been disclosed in this Cr.M.P. The undisputed fact remains that as has been observed by the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi in the impugned order that Krishna Kumar Sharma is not an eye-witness to the occurrence but he has heard about the occurrence from the informant after the occurrence took place. So, at best Krishna Kumar Sharma can be termed as a hearsay witness and in the absence of any material for the learned trial court to arrive at the conclusion that the evidence to be put-forth by Krishna Kumar Sharma was essential for the just decision of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi has not committed any error in rejecting the petition under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner; warranting interference of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 9. 9. So far as the order dated 25.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV, Ranchi in connection with Criminal Revision No.58 of 2025 is concerned, the undisputed fact remains that the order rejecting an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order so Section 397 (2) of the Cr.P.C. bars a Criminal Revision in challenging such interlocutory order. Therefore, this Court also do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 25.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XV, Ranchi in connection with Criminal Revision No.58 of 2025 for dismissing the criminal revision on the ground that the same being not maintainable, having been filed against an interlocutory order. 10. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to accede to the prayer made by the petitioner in this Cr.M.P. in exercise of its power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 11. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, is dismissed.