2026:UHC:3738 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 C528 No. 1012 of 2026 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. G.C. Lakhchaura, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. Pushpa Bhatt, Additional Advocate General and Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. According to the applicant, respondent no. 2 lodged an F.I .R. against the applicant, his mother, and his elder brother for offences punishable under Sections 34, 323, 504, 506 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against all the accused persons. On 16.09.2021, P.W.-1, Smt. Archana Bahuguna, who is the wife of the applicant’s elder brother, was examined before the learned trial Court. It is the case of the applicant that, at the relevant point of time, P.W.-1 and the applicant’s elder brother were living separately due to matrimonial discord, and, therefore, her testimony was allegedly influenced by the strained matrimonial relationship. Subsequently, the matrimonial dispute between them was amicably resolved and they resumed cohabitation. Thereafter, on 07.08.2025, the applicant moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of P.W.-1 for further examination. The said application was rejected by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 09.09.2025, inter alia holding that the case pertains to offences under Section 302 I.P.C. and is not a matrimonial dispute; hence, subsequent reconciliation between P.W.-1 and the co-accused cannot constitute a valid ground for recalling the witness. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the material fact that the matrimonial dispute between P.W.-1 and her husband, namely, the elder brother of the applicant, has since been 2026:UHC:3738 amicably settled, and they are now residing together peacefully. It is contended that such subsequent reconciliation constitutes a substantial and material change in the circumstances of the case, which has a direct bearing on the credibility and evidentiary value of the testimony earlier rendered by P.W.-1. It is further submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 is of vital significance to the prosecution case and, therefore, her re-examination is necessary for the just adjudication of the matter. Learned counsel argues that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is wide in amplitude and is intended to enable the Court to arrive at the truth and render a fair and complete decision. According to him, recall of the witness would not cause any prejudice to the prosecution; rather, it would advance the cause of justice by affording the applicant an effective opportunity to bring on record the subsequent developments having material relevance to the case. It is thus argued that the impugned order rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. suffers from illegality and non-application of mind, and is liable to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the material available on record, including the impugned order as well as the proceedings of the learned trial Court. The only ground raised by the applicant for recalling P.W.1 is that the matrimonial dispute between P.W.-1 and her husband, namely, the elder brother of the applicant, has subsequently been resolved, and therefore, according to the applicant, such reconciliation constitutes a material change in the circumstances of the case warranting recall of the witness for further examination. It is a settled principle of law that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised for the purpose of filling up lacunae in the case of either the prosecution or the defence. The object of the provision is to empower the Court, at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceedings, to summon any person as a witness, or to recall and re-examine any witness already examined, if the evidence of such person appears to be essential for the just decision of the case. At the same time, such discretionary power is required to be exercised 2026:UHC:3738 sparingly, with due care and circumspection, and only where the Court is satisfied that recall of the witness is genuinely necessary for eliciting material facts essential for proper adjudication of the matter. Merely because subsequent reconciliation has taken place between P.W.1 and her husband, the same, by itself, does not constitute a sufficient ground to recall the witness, particularly when her testimony has already been recorded and subjected to cross-examination in accordance with law. The subsequent settlement of matrimonial disputes between the parties cannot ipso facto render the earlier testimony unreliable or necessitate a de novo examination of the witness. 5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohanlal Shamji Soni Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1991 SC 1346, has held that in order to enable the Court to find out the truth and render a just decision, the salutary provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C. are enacted where under any Court by exercising its discretionary authority at any stage of enquiry, trial or other proceeding can summon any person as witness or examine any person in attendance though not summoned as a witness or recall or re - examine any person already examined who are expected to be able to throw light upon the matter in dispute. Opportunity of rebuttal shall be given to other party. The aid of the section should be invoked only with the object of discovering relevant facts or obtaining proper proof of such facts for a just decision of the case and it must be used judicially and not capriciously or arbitrarily because any improper or capricious exercise of the power may lead to undesirable results. It should not be used for filling up the lacuna by the prosecution or by the defence or to the disadvantage of the accused or to cause serious prejudice to the defence of the accused or to give an unfair advantage to the rival side and further the additional evidence should not be received as a disguise for a retrial or to change the nature of the case against either of the parties. 6. Applying the aforesaid precedent, no exceptional circumstances warrant interference with the impugned order. Permitting recall 2026:UHC:3738 would amount to filling a defence lacuna, causing prejudice to the prosecution and prolonging the trial unnecessarily. The trial Court correctly exercised its discretion, and no perversity or illegality is discernible in the impugned order. The application lacks merit. 7. In the result, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application is dismissed. No order as to costs. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 15.05.2026 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a2 0dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109C B987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.05.15 15:49:11 +05'30'