Pradeep Sarkar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87765
1 MCRC-50442-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
th
ON THE 29 OF OCTOBER, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 50442 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC010757842026
PRADEEP SARKAR AND ANR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Shafiqullah - Advocate for the applicants.
Shri Manoj Kushwaha - Panel Lawyr for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The present application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed seeking quashment of the order dated
13.07.2026 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal, in
RCT No. 6502726/2017, whereby the application filed by the applicants
under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to
Section 348 BNSS, for recalling the complainant for further cross-
examination has been rejected.
2. The applicants are facing trial for the offences punishable under
Sections 279, 294, 323, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The
complainant, Sandeep Sengar, was examined during trial and was cross-
examined on behalf of the applicants. Subsequently, the applicants engaged a
new counsel who, upon examining the complainant's statement, opined that
certain material questions had not been put to him during the earlier cross-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY
Signing time: 05-11-2026
11:42:44

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87765
2 MCRC-50442-2026
examination. Accordingly, an application dated 25.04.2025 was filed seeking

recall of the complainant for further cross-examination. The learned trial
Court rejected the application vide the impugned order dated 13.07.2026
(Annexure P-1), observing that the application did not specify the questions
left unasked or explain the circumstances in which the earlier opportunity
had not been properly utilised. The copy of the complainant's statement and
the recall application have been filed as Annexures P-2 and P-3,
respectively.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned trial
Court has committed an error in rejecting the application, as further cross-
examination of the complainant is necessary for a fair trial and proper
adjudication of the case. It is contended that the newly engaged counsel,
upon perusal of the evidence, found certain important questions which had
not been put to the complainant earlier. It is further submitted that denial of
an opportunity to conduct further cross-examination would prejudice the
defence and violate the applicants' right to a fair trial. Hence, setting aside of
the impugned order is sought.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the application
and supports the impugned order, submitting that the complainant has
already been cross-examined and the applicants have failed to disclose any
specific reason warranting his recall. It is contended that a change of counsel,
by itself, cannot be a ground for permitting further cross-examination.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY
Signing time: 05-11-2026
11:42:44

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87765
3 MCRC-50442-2026
6. In the present case, the complainant has already been examined and

cross-examined on behalf of the applicants. The learned trial Court has
specifically observed that the application does not disclose the particular
points on which further cross-examination is sought or explain why those
questions could not be put to the witness despite the earlier opportunity. The
applicants have primarily relied upon the engagement of a new counsel and
the latter's opinion that certain questions were left unasked. Such a
circumstance, in the absence of specific particulars demonstrating the
necessity of further examination, cannot by itself justify reopening the cross-
examination.
7. The right to a fair trial is undoubtedly an essential component of
criminal justice; however, it does not confer an unrestricted right to recall a
witness. The applicants were afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the
complainant, and no specific material has been shown to establish that the
proposed further examination is essential for a just decision of the case. The
learned trial Court has considered the relevant circumstances and rejected the
application for cogent reasons. No illegality, perversity or material
irregularity warranting interference under Section 528 BNSS is made out.
8. Consequently, the application, being devoid of merits, is hereby
dismissed. The impugned order dated 13.07.2026 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal, is affirmed.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY
Signing time: 05-11-2026
11:42:44

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:87765
4 MCRC-50442-2026
Prachi

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY
Signing time: 05-11-2026
11:42:44