Crl. Revision No. 661 of 2010 -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Revision No. 661 of 2010 Date of Decision: 08.8.2011. Sodhi Kumar .......Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. R.S.Atwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Addl. A.G. Punjab for respondent No.1. Mr. Madan Sandhu, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 4. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.2.2010, whereby the application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short) was allowed. Respondents No. 2 to 4 are facing trial in FIR No. 106 dated 19.6.2007 under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 of the Indian Penal Code. During the pendency of the trial, respondents-accused moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the prosecutrix for further cross examination. It was averred in the application that at the time of cross examination of the prosecutrix inadvertently, certain documents were not put to her and hence, the prosecutrix be again recalled for further cross examination. Vide the impugned order dated 11.2.2010, the said application was allowed. Hence, the present petition by the complainant. Crl. Revision No. 661 of 2010 -2 - Heard. Section 311 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “Power to summon material witness, or examine person present:- Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; and the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case.” Thus, as per the above provision, the court can summon any person as a witness during trial for the just decision of the case. In the present case, the prosecutrix was duly cross examined by the learned defence counsel. Now, the accused have changed their counsel and due to this reason, they want to recall the prosecutrix for further cross examination. The defence counsel was required to confront the prosecutrix with her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. or the alleged letters written by her, at the time of her cross examination. Since the learned defence counsel had failed to put the said material to the prosecutrix at the time of her cross examination, the application was not liable to be allowed merely because the accused had engaged a new counsel. The prosecutrix is a minor and it is not in the interest of justice to summon her again in the witness box. It will cause undue harassment to the prosecutrix. It is a case offence under Section Crl. Revision No. 661 of 2010 -3 - 376 IPC and requires sensitive dealing. The trial court, thus, erred in allowing the application filed by the accused under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.2.2010 is set aside. Consequently, the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 08, 2011 Gurpreet