CRR No. 1064 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No. 1064 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.5.2011 Faqir Chand ........ Petitioner Versus State of U.T. Chandigarh ........ Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. APS Guliani, Advocate, for the petitioner. JORA SINGH, J. Faqir Chand, preferred this revision petition to challenge the order dated 7.4.2011 (Annexure P-3), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, in case FIR No. 127 dated 25.4.2008, registered under Sections 323/307/506 IPC, Police Station Sector-11, Chandigarh. By the said order application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. moved by the petitioner for recalling PW-1 Arvind Kumar, PW-3 Ganga Ram and PW-4 Laxmi, was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that FIR No. 127 dated 25.4.2008, was registered against the petitioner. Arvind Kumar, Ganga Ram and Laxmi Devi, appeared as PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 respectively but during the pendency of the trial, complainant party approached the petitioner to effect compromise. Complainant party promised to effect compromise but later on complainant party backed CRR No. 1064 of 2011 -2- out from effecting compromise. Due to this reason defence counsel of the petitioner/accused was not mentally prepared to cross-examine the witnesses. Witnesses were not cross-examined at length. Learned defence counsel for the petitioner/accused failed to cross-examine the material witnesses i.e. PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 on material points. Requested that witnesses be re-summoned for further cross- examination by the petitioner and he (petitioner) is ready to pay costs. After going through the petition, I am of the opinion that submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is without any force. FIR No. 127 dated 25.4.2008, under Sections 323/307/506 IPC, Police Station Sector-11, Chandigarh, was registered against the petitioner and after charge, Arvind Kumar, Ganga Ram and Laxmi Devi, appeared as PWs. Allegation of the petitioner is that complainant party contacted the petitioner to effect compromise. There was a compromise but later on complainant party backed out from effecting compromise. Prosecution witnesses were not cross-examined at length because there was a compromise although the offence was not compoundable. In 1984 (1) RCR (Criminal) 95, “Jagdish Chander Vs. State of Haryana”, Hon'ble High Court opined that application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed when case was fixed for arguments then opined that Court has discretion to examine or recall a witness if his evidence is essential for just decision of case and recalling does not demolish the defence set up by the accused. No doubt, under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Court has the power to recall or re-examine a witness if his evidence is essential for just CRR No. 1064 of 2011 -3- decision of case but power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily. First of all compromise is not on the file. In case, parties have effected compromise then defence counsel should have requested the Court to adjourn the case but no request by the defence counsel. PWs appeared and were fully cross-examined. PW-1 Arvind Kumar, was examined on 14.7.2009. His examination-in-chief, was completed on 15.10.2010 and was cross examined at length. Examination-in-chief of Ganga Ram was recorded on 10.8.2010. Cross-examination was completed on 15.10.2010. Laxmi Devi was also cross-examined at length. As discussed earlier, if, before appearance of the witnesses in Court there was a compromise or complainant party was interested to effect compromise with the accused then before recording the statements of eye-witnesses/complainant, defence counsel should have requested the Court to adjourn the case, to afford an opportunity to effect compromise if they were interested but there was no request or compromise. Witnesses were cross-examined at length. Now the ulterior motive of the accused is to re-summon the witness for cross-examination, so, that they could resile from their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and categorically state that petitioner/accused did not cause injuries to the injured. Once the witnesses have appeared in Court and they were cross-examined at length then no provision or justification to recall the witnesses with this idea to resile from their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C and state that crime was not committed by the petitioner/accused. In case, there is a compromise after the appearance of eye-witnesses/complainant CRR No. 1064 of 2011 -4- then same could easily be produced in the Court then the Court is to take lenient view as per compromise. Petitioner party seems to pressurize the witnesses to re- appear in Court and state that injuries were not caused by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner fails to point out as to which document was not put to the witnesses and what are the material facts which were not put to the witnesses. When the witnesses appeared in Court and were cross- examined at length then they are not to be recalled simply on the ground that there was a compromise. In case, the witnesses are recalled then accused party will continue to pressurize the witnesses to re-appear in Court to make statement favourable to them that crime was not committed by the accused. Till the end of trial injured/eye- witnesses will remain under the pressure of accused. For the reasons recorded above, revision petition without merits is dismissed. May 9, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE