2026:UHC:3778 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C-5 2 8 No.1 0 1 3 of 2 0 2 6 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. B.S. Koranga, learned counsel for the applicants. 2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Present C-528 application has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 11.05.2026 passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge, Champawat, District Champawat in S.S.T. No. 20 of 2023, whereby the application moved by the applicants under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling P.W.1 and P.W.6 for further cross-examination has been rejected, and further seeking a direction to the learned trial court to permit the applicants to further cross-examine P.W.1 and P.W.6. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that respondent no.2 lodged an F.I.R. against the applicants under Sections 324, 363 and 376-D I.P.C.; that, upon completion of investigation, charge- sheet was submitted and the learned trial court proceeded to frame charges, whereafter prosecution evidence commenced. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants would further submit that the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.) was received after a considerable delay of about two years and that P.W.1 and P.W.6 had already been examined prior to receipt 2026:UHC:3778 of the said report; that, in view of the subsequent receipt of the F.S.L. report, further cross-examination of P.W.1 and P.W.6 has become necessary for just adjudication of the case; that, the applicants moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court seeking recall of P.W.1 and P.W.6 for further cross-examination; however, the same has been rejected vide impugned order dated 11.05.2026. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants would further submit that recall of P.W.1 and P.W.6 is essential to ensure a fair opportunity of defence and fair trial and, therefore, the impugned order suffers from illegality and is liable to be quashed. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel would vehemently oppose the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicants and would submit that sufficient opportunity had already been afforded to the applicants to cross-examine P.W.1 and P.W.6 and that detailed cross-examination of both the witnesses has already been conducted before the learned trial court. 8. Learned State counsel would further submit that even after receipt of the F.S.L. report, the concerned expert witness, who had brought and proved the F.S.L. report and samples, has also been examined and cross-examined by the defence. It is, thus, contended that no prejudice has been caused to the applicants. 9. Learned State counsel would also submit that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been filed only with an intention to delay the proceedings, inasmuch as prosecution evidence already 2026:UHC:3778 stood concluded and the matter was fixed for final arguments on 08.05.2026. On the said date, adjournment was sought on behalf of the applicants and thereafter the matter was fixed for 21.05.2026. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. Section 311 Cr.P.C. confers discretionary power upon the Court to summon or recall any witness at any stage of inquiry or trial, if his evidence appears to be essential for the just decision of the case. However, such power is required to be exercised judiciously and not to fill up lacunae in the defence or prosecution case or to unnecessarily protract the trial proceedings. 12. Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the learned trial court has considered the entire factual matrix of the case and has passed a detailed, reasoned and speaking order while rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C, thus, this Court does not find any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. 13. Accordingly, the present C-528 application, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. 14. No order as to costs. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 15.05.2026 Mamta MAM TA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f24 4f3e584af1449e430ef900bf09a 6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9 cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b66d d26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef 0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.05.19 15:59:17 +05'30' 2026:UHC:3778