IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 218 of 2011. Date of decision: 11.11.2011. Narender Thaper …..Petitioner. Vs. Vijay Kumar & anr. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General, for respondent No.2. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This petition has been filed for setting aside order dated 13.9.2011 and allowing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for recalling the complainant for further cross- examination. 2. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Mr. Narender Kumar, Advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 6.5.2010. He cross-examined the complainant. It has also been stated that Narender Kumar, Advocate was not engaged by the petitioner. He did not put material questions to the complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not denied that the counsel who appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 6.5.2010 filed an application for exemption of the petitioner, which was allowed Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… and thereafter the same counsel cross-examined the complainant. The copy of application under section 311 Cr.P.C., which was filed in the court below has not been placed on record. 3. There is nothing in the order dated 13.9.2011 that application was also moved on the ground that material questions have not been put to the complainant. The petitioner took the benefit of exemption on 6.5.2010 through the same counsel who cross- examined the complainant on 6.5.2010. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that counsel who appeared on his behalf on 6.5.2010 was not authorized by the petitioner. No case has been made out for setting aside order dated 13.9.2011 vide which Court below rejected the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and recalling the complainant for further cross examination who was examined on 6.9.2011. 4. There is no merit in the petition, hence, the same is dismissed, so also Cr.MP No. 871 of 2011. November 11, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.