# Maniram Pal @ Maniram v. State Of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 323
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-08
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 6409 of 2025
- **Bench:** Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/maniram-pal-maniram-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53677
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

u/s 311 vide impugned order; opportunity for
cross- examination of witnesses.

Headnotes
Code of Criminal procedure, 1973-sec
311-Rejection of the application u/s 311
of Cr.P.C-injured was medically examinedapplicant was in jail and the proper opportunity
of cross- examination has not been afforded by
the learned trial court- admitted position is that
PW-2 and the PW- 3 were summoned when the
applicant- accused- was produced before the
trial court-he instructed his counsel not to argue
in the matter -the trial court asked the pairokar
to call another counsel- once the next counsel
did
not
appear
-opportunity
of
crossexamination was closed-this cannot be a reason
to close the important stage of a trial-applicant
was under custody and things were not in
control of him -opportunity should be granted.
Application allowed.
Held:
This court finds that the scope and object of the
provision is to enable the court to determine the
truth and to discover all relevant facts to arrive
at a just decision of the case which in fact is the
paramount goal of a trial. The intent of the
legislature is very obvious from bare reading of
Section 311 of the court as the court can
summon and examine or recall and re-examine
a person, if evidence appears to be essential for
the just decision. In fact, the word 'essential'
deliberately finds place in the provision as the
court is duty bound to satisfy the essentiality
with reasons, meaning thereby that if the court
is either passing the order for recall or reexamine any person in evidence or rejecting/
declining such request of either the parties,
reason must have to be recorded as the
opportunity of cross-examination is one of the
most important stage and failing which,
certainly prejudice would be caused. (E-9)

Case Law Cited

## Text

8 All. Maniram Pal @ Maniram Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
323
and Sessions Judge, Raibarelly in Criminal
Revision No.12/2022; Mohd. Jaleel Vs.
Mohd. Ismayl Khan and Others and the
order dated 30.07.2022 passed by learned
Second
Additional
Sessions
Judge,
Raibarelly
in
Criminal
Revision
No.139/2022; Sarfaraj and Others Vs. State
of U.P. and another are hereby set aside
alongwith the entire criminal proceedings
of Complaint Case No.9/2019 (new Case
No.22/2019); Mohd. Ismayl Khan Vs.
Sarfaraj and Others, pending in the court
of learned Fast Track Court / S.D.,
Raibarelly.

41. Let a copy of this order be
communicated to the court concerned
forthwith and in any case within a period of
two weeks from today.
---------
(2025) 8 ILRA 323
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 6409 of 2025

Maniram Pal @ Maniram ...Applicant
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sheo Prakash Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Swati Sharma

Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to rejection of the application
u/s 311 vide impugned order; opportunity for
cross- examination of witnesses.

Headnotes
Code of Criminal procedure, 1973-sec
311-Rejection of the application u/s 311
of Cr.P.C-injured was medically examinedapplicant was in jail and the proper opportunity
of cross- examination has not been afforded by
the learned trial court- admitted position is that
PW-2 and the PW- 3 were summoned when the
applicant- accused- was produced before the
trial court-he instructed his counsel not to argue
in the matter -the trial court asked the pairokar
to call another counsel- once the next counsel
did
not
appear
-opportunity
of
crossexamination was closed-this cannot be a reason
to close the important stage of a trial-applicant
was under custody and things were not in
control of him -opportunity should be granted.
Application allowed.
Held:
This court finds that the scope and object of the
provision is to enable the court to determine the
truth and to discover all relevant facts to arrive
at a just decision of the case which in fact is the
paramount goal of a trial. The intent of the
legislature is very obvious from bare reading of
Section 311 of the court as the court can
summon and examine or recall and re-examine
a person, if evidence appears to be essential for
the just decision. In fact, the word 'essential'
deliberately finds place in the provision as the
court is duty bound to satisfy the essentiality
with reasons, meaning thereby that if the court
is either passing the order for recall or reexamine any person in evidence or rejecting/
declining such request of either the parties,
reason must have to be recorded as the
opportunity of cross-examination is one of the
most important stage and failing which,
certainly prejudice would be caused. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. Manju Devi versus State of Rajasthan, [2019]
6 SCC 203

List of Acts
Code of Criminal procedure, 1973

List of Keywords
opportunity of cross-examination of the witness;
court can summon and examine or recall and
re-examine a person or witness; evidence
appears to be essential; just decision of the
case; Section 311
324 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Appearances of parties
 Counsel for Applicant :- Sheo Prakash Singh,
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Swati Sharma

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash
Singh, J.)

1. Ms. Swati Sharma and Mr. Aman
Diwedi, Advocates have put in appearance
by filing Vakalatnama for opposite party
no.2/ informant and the same is taken on
record.

2. Heard Sri Sheo Prakash Singh,
learned counsel for the applicant, learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2/
informant/ complainant, Sri Sushil Pandey,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused
the record.

3. The present application is directed
against
the
impugned
order
dated
23.06.2025, passed by Additional District
and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, EC Act,
Pratapgarh in S.T. No. 115 of 2024, arising
out of Case Crime No. 257 of 2020 under
Section 307 I.P.C., Police Station Patti,
District Pratapgarh. Further prayer is made
that one opportunity be provided to the
petitioner
for
cross-examination
of
witnesses, namely, PW-2 - Ramesh Pal and
PW-3 - Dr. Anuj Kumar Chaurasiya, for
fair and proper disposal of the case."

4. Briefly stated prosecution story is
that the learned counsel for the applicant is
that the opposite party no.2/ informant had
got lodged the FIR against the petitioner on
24.09.2020, bearing Case Crime No. 257 of
2020, under Section 307 of IPC at Police
Station Patti, District Pratapgarh, while
instituting an application under Section
156(3) of Cr.P.C. with respect to an alleged
incident, which said to have happened on
27.02.2020 at 7:30 P.M. The injured was
medically examined on 27.02.2020, and
thereafter, the X-ray was also got done but
no fracture was seen. The applicant was
arrested by the police on 29.08.2023 and he
was released on bail on 12.12.2024. The
PW-2 was examined on 20.06.2024 and the
PW-3/ Doctor, who examined the injured,
deposed his testimony on 21.10.2024.
During the aforesaid period, the applicant
was in jail and the proper opportunity of
cross-examination has not been afforded by
the learned trial court.

5. Contention put forth by learned
counsel for the applicant is that the finding,
which is recorded for rejection of the
application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. in
the impugned order, is evident that when
the applicant was produced from the jail
before the Court, during the argument by
his counsel, he started shouting and asked
his counsel not to argue in the matter and
on such instructions, the learned counsel
for the applicant stated before the court that
he would not further conduct this case,
whereas the another finding has also been
recorded in the same breath that there was
another advocate for the applicant but it is
apparent that because of the pairokar did
not call him, the opportunity of crossexamining the PW-2 and the PW-3 have
been closed. He added that both the reasons
assigned by the learned trial court while
rejecting the application under Section 311
of Cr.P.C. is baseless and perverse. He
submits that the PW-2 and the PW-3 are
the important witnesses and closing the
opportunity of cross-examination, in such a
cursory manner, will cause acute prejudice
to the applicant-accused.

6. In support of contention, he has
placed reliance on a judgment reported in
[2019] 6 SCC 203, Manju Devi versus
8 All. Maniram Pal @ Maniram Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
325
State of Rajasthan and has referred the
relevant paragraphs, which read as under:-

"14. In Manju Devi v State of
Rajasthan, (2019) 6 SCC 203, a two-Judge
bench of this Court noted that an
application under Section 311 could not be
rejected on the sole ground that the case
had been pending for an inordinate amount
of time (ten years there). Rather, it noted
that "the length/duration of a case cannot
displace the basic requirement of ensuring
the just decision after taking all the
necessary and material evidence on record.
In other words, the age of a case, by itself,
cannot be decisive of the matter when a
prayer is made for examination of a
material witness". Speaking for the Court,
Justice Dinesh Maheshwari expounded on
the principles underlying Section 311 in the
following terms:

"10. It needs hardly any emphasis
that the discretionary powers like those
under Section 311 CrPC are essentially
intended to ensure that every necessary and
appropriate measure is taken by the Court
to keep the record straight and to clear any
ambiguity insofar as the evidence is
concerned as also to ensure that no
prejudice is caused to anyone. The
principles underlying Section 311 CrPC
and amplitude of the powers of the court
thereunder have been explained by this
Court in several decisions [Vide Mohanlal
Shamji Soni v. Union of India, 1991 Supp
(1) SCC 271: 1991 SCC (Cri) 595; Zahira
Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat,
(2004) 4 SCC 158: 2004 SCC (Cri) 999;
Mina Lalita Baruwa v. State of Orissa,
(2013) 16 SCC 173: (2014) 6 SCC (Cri)
218; Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of
Bihar, (2013) 14 SCC 461: (2014) 4 SCC
(Cri) 256 and Natasha Singh v. CBI, (2013)
5 SCC 741: (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 828]. In
Natasha Singh v. CBI [Natasha Singh v.
CBI, (2013) 5 SCC 741: (2013) 4 SCC
(Cri) 828], though the application for
examination of witnesses was filed by the
accused but, on the principles relating to
the exercise of powers under Section 311,
this Court observed, inter alia, as under:
(SCC pp. 746 & 748-49, paras 8 &15)

"8. Section 311 CrPC empowers
the court to summon a material witness, or
to examine a person present at "any stage"
of "any enquiry", or "trial", or "any other
proceedings" under CrPC, or to summon
any person as a witness, or to recall and
re-examine any person who has already
been examined if his evidence appears to it,
to be essential to the arrival of a just
decision of the case. Undoubtedly, CrPC
has conferred a very wide discretionary
power upon the court in this respect, but
such a discretion is to be exercised
judiciously and not arbitrarily. The power
of the court in this context is very wide, and
in exercise of the same, it may summon any
person as a witness at any stage of the
trial, or other proceedings. The court is
competent to exercise such power even suo
motu if no such application has been filed
by either of the parties. However, the court
must satisfy itself, that it was in fact
essential to examine such a witness, or to
recall him for further examination in order
to arrive at a just decision of the case.

***

15. The scope and object of the
provision is to enable the court to
determine the truth and to render a just
decision after discovering all relevant facts
and obtaining proper proof of such facts, to
arrive at a just decision of the case. Power
must be exercised judiciously and not
capriciously
or
arbitrarily,
as
any
326 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
improper or capricious exercise of such
power may lead to undesirable results. An
application under Section 311 CrPC must
not be allowed only to fill up a lacuna in
the case of the prosecution, or of 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 opposite party.
Further, the additional evidence must not
be received as a disguise for retrial, or to
change the nature of the case against either
of the parties. Such a power must be
exercised, provided that the evidence that is
likely to be tendered by a witness, is
germane
to
the
issue
involved.
An
opportunity of rebuttal however, must be
given to the other party. The power
conferred under Section 311 CrPC must
therefore, be invoked by the court only in
order to meet the ends of justice, for strong
and valid reasons, and the same must be
exercised
with
great
caution
and
circumspection. The very use of words such
as "any court", "at any stage", or "or any
enquiry, trial or other proceedings", "any
person" and "any such person" clearly
spells out that the provisions of this section
have been expressed in the widest possible
terms, and do not limit the discretion of the
court in any way. There is thus no escape if
the fresh evidence to be obtained is
essential to the just decision of the case.
The determinative factor should therefore
be, whether the summoning/recalling of the
said witness is in fact, essential to the just
decision of the case." (emphasis in
original)"

7. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid
judgment, he submits that it has been held
that an application under Section 311 of
Cr.P.C. could not be rejected, for the sole
reason that the case had been pending for
an inordinate period of time, unless there is
some material which could indicate that the
application is filed with intent to delay the
proceedings of trial as the same cannot
displace the basic requirement of ensuring
the just decision after taking all the
necessary and material evidence on record.

8. The discretionary powers enshrined
under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. are essentially
intended to ensure that every necessary and
appropriate measure is taken by the court to
keep the record straight and to clear any
ambiguity insofar as the evidence is
concerned and also to ensure that no
prejudice is caused to anyone. Thus
submission is that the order impugned
dated 23.06.2025 is against the settled
proposition of law, and therefore, the same
may be set aside.

9.
Per
contra,
learned
counsel
appearing for the opposite party no.2/
informant has vehemently opposed the
contentions aforesaid and submits that the
order impugned itself is enough to show
that the applicant was called from the jail,
though he himself has instructed his
advocate not to argue in the matter. He
submits that it is not a case where the
opportunity of cross-examination was not
afforded to the applicant-accused but he
himself has chosen not to cross-examine
the witnesses produced by the prosecution.
He also submits that this is a dilly dallying
practice and the same should be deprecated
so that the speedy justice could be ensured
to the victim. Therefore, submission is that
no interference is warranted and the instant
application may be dismissed.

10. Learned A.G.A. for the State has
also supported the version of the counsel
for the opposite party no.2 and submits that
the reason assigned by the learned trial
court for not entertaining an application
8 All. Maniram Pal @ Maniram Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
327
under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. is justiciable.
He added that the reason has been assigned
in the impugned order that why the
opportunity of cross-examination is being
closed, and therefore, the applicant is not
entitled for any relief.

11. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and after perusal of the record, it
transpires that an application was moved by
the applicant under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.,
which has been rejected vide order
impugned dated 23.06.2025.

12. Section 311 of Cr.P.C. reads as
under:-

"Any Court may, at any stage of
any inquiry, trial or other proceeding
under this Code, summon 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."

13. The FIR was lodged on 27.02.2020
and the applicant was arrested by the police
on 23.08.2023, whereafter he was released on
12.12.2024 and the admitted position is that
on 20.06.2024 and 21.10.2024, the PW-2 and
the
PW-3
were
summoned
and
the
opportunity
of
cross-examination
was
afforded to the applicant-accused. From
perusal of the finding of the trial court, it
transpires that when the applicant-accused
was produced before the trial court, he
instructed his counsel not to argue in the
matter and, under such circumstances, the
trial court asked the pairokar to call another
counsel, but once the next counsel did not
appear before the court, the opportunity of
cross-examination was closed.

14.
The
applicant-accused
was
produced before the trial court from jail and
once he had instructed his counsel not to
argue in the case, the opportunity of crossexamination was closed but in real sense
this can not be a reason so as to close the
important stage of a trial, not affording an
opportunity of cross-examination. The
another finding is that the pairokar did not
call the another advocate, whose name was
printed in Vakalatnama but again it is not
understandable that since the applicant was
under custody and was brought from jail,
therefore, the things were not in control of
him thus, an opportunity should have been
given by the learned trial court with respect
to the appearance of another counsel, or it
should have been asked by the learned trial
court to the accused that whether he wants
another counsel or any amicus in his case,
which is also missing apparently from the
order impugned.

15. This court finds that the scope and
object of the provision is to enable the
court to determine the truth and to discover
all relevant facts to arrive at a just decision
of the case which in fact is the paramount
goal of a trial. The intent of the legislature
is very obvious from bare reading of
Section 311 of the court as the court can
summon and examine or recall and reexamine a person, if evidence appears to be
essential for the just decision. In fact, the
word 'essential' deliberately finds place in
the provision as the court is duty bound to
satisfy
the
essentiality
with
reasons,
meaning thereby that if the court is either
passing the order for recall or re-examine
any person in evidence or rejecting/
declining such request of either the parties,
reason must have to be recorded as the
opportunity of cross-examination is one of
the most important stage and failing which,
certainly prejudice would be caused.
328 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

16. This court is also aware that the
power conferred under Section 311 of
Cr.P.C. which could be invoked by the
court only in order to meet the ends of
justice, for strong and valid reasons as per
the settled law, but at the same time, the
court while dealing with the application
under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., should be
cautious enough that while denying any
opportunity, no prejudice is caused to
anyone. So far as the present case is
concerned, the PW-2 and the PW-3 are the
important witnesses, and therefore, the
opportunity of cross-examination of both
the witnesses is must, which is missing in
the present case.

17. Hence, without expressing any
view on the merits of the trial, the order
impugned dated 23.06.2025 passed on an
application, under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.,
by the learned trial court is unsustainable,
resultantly, the same is hereby set aside.

18. Consequently, learned trial court is
directed to afford the opportunity of crossexamination of both the witnesses, PW-2
and PW-3, by fixing a suitable date. It is
provided that if the appellant (accused)
does not cooperate or appear before the
learned trial court on the date fixed by the
learned trial court, liberty is granted to the
trial court to proceed in accordance with
law.

19.
The
application
is
allowed
accordingly.
---------
(2025) 8 ILRA 328
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.
Application U/S 482 No. 6782 of 2023

Viri Singh & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Uma Datta Tripathi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Vijay Kumar Mishra

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to an application under S.482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, filed by
the applicants, father-in-law and mother-in-law
of the complainant-wife, seeking quashing of
the
Non-Bailable
Warrant
issued
by
the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and the
entire proceedings of Complaint Case instituted
under SS. 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian
Penal Code and SS. 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act; the principal question for consideration
being
whether
continuation
of
criminal
proceedings against the applicants, based solely
on general, vague, and omnibus allegations
arising out of a matrimonial dispute, amounts to
an abuse of the process of court.

Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
-
SS.200, 202, 203, 204, 212, 213, 482 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - SS. 319, 323,
498-A, 504, 506, Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 - SS. 3, 4, 7(3) - Quashing of
proceedings
-
Allegations
vague
and
omnibus - Giving and taking dowry -
Absence of corroboration - Cruelty -
Definition and scope Vague allegations -
Abuse of process of law - Intentional
insult
and
criminal
intimidation
-
Ingredients not met - Hurt - No injury
proved.
Held: General, vague and omnibus allegations
have been made against applicants - No specific
role assigned - No particulars of time, place or
nature of demand or harassment disclosed -
Criminal proceedings against applicants (namely
Viri Singh and Smt. Kasturi Devi) including NonBailable Warrant order dated 24.5.2022 are
hereby quashed - Application allowed - Court,
however, left liberty to proceed with criminal