Mukesh Kumar vs Suraksha

CRM-M-63088-2026 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
140
CRM-M-63088-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 04.11.2026
MUKESH KUMAR
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present:- Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate with
Mr. Rishi Pal Chaudhary, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Addl. AG, Haryana.
*
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J. (Oral)
1. This petition is directed against the order dated 27.10.2026
(Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Kurukshetra in Sessions Case NO.274 of 2024 titled as “State Vs. Mukesh
Kumar and another” vide which the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C,
1973 (now 348 of BNSS, 2023) moved by the petitioner-accused for
summoning PW-3 Rajnish has been dismissed.
2. Notice of motion.
3. Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, Addl. AG, Haryana , accepts
notice on behalf of respondent No.1 .
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.05 19:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-63088-2026 (O&M) -2-
State counsel and have gone through the material available on record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
application moved by the petitioner for recalling PW-3 for further cross-
examination, to enable him to confront the witness with his affidavit dated
21.09.2024, has been mechanically rejected. In fact, PW-3, in the said
affidavit, has specifically deposed that he had got the FIR registered under
some misconception and that he has no objection in case the FIR is
cancelled. Learned counsel further contended that further cross-examination
of PW-3 is essential for the just decision of the case, as some questions,
which could not be put to him earlier, are required to be put to him, which
would help the Court in arriving at a just conclusion. No prejudice will be
caused to the prosecution in case further cross-examination of the said
witness is allowed, as the prosecution can also be given an opportunity to re-
examine him. Learned counsel contended that the impugned order be set
aside.
6. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the
petition and submitted that PW-3 has already been examined and cross-
examined at length by the accused. Learned counsel contended that the
application has been rightly dismissed by the learned trial Court, as the
petitioner cannot be permitted to recall the witness for further cross-
examination merely to confront him with a subsequent affidavit and thereby
enable him to change his earlier version and he prayed that the petition in
hand be dismissed.
7. As per version of applicants, as mentioned in the application,
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.05 19:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-63088-2026 (O&M) -3-
PW3 Rajnish has given an affidavit to the effect that the incident in question
took place by chance and he has no objection, in case the present case is
cancelled as he had got the FIR registered due to some misunderstanding.
The said witness was examined earlier but despite due diligence, he could
not be cross-examined properly and affidavit could not be put to him. As
such, material questions which are to be put to him are necessary for just
decision of the case. However, the statement of PW-3 recorded before the
trial Court which has been annexed as Annexure P-4 shows that he is a
public servant and the police party was assaulted while it was discharging its
duties and PW-3 has already been examined by the prosecution and cross-
examined by the accused at length. Now the witness cannot be recalled for
further cross-examination so as to enable him to resile from his earlier
version. In case, he had already executed the said affidavit, the same should
have been put to him at the time he was being cross-examined. It is well
settled that the powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the
Court where recalling of a witness is essential for just decision of the case
and not merely to enable a party to improve its case and fill up the lacunas or
to introduce a subsequent contradictory version. A perusal of the application
shows that the questions which could not be put have not been specified in
the said application. The affidavit given by the said witness thus does not
justify his recall for further cross-examination.
8. Learned trial Court has also thus appreciated the facts of the
case and material on file in the correct perspective while rejecting the
application and no interference in the impugned order is called for.
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.05 19:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-63088-2026 (O&M) -4-
9. Resultantly, the present petition is hereby dismissed.
10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
04.11.2026 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
Priyanka Thakur JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.11.05 19:05
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document