RAJAT SINGH vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Office
Notes,
reports,
orders or
proceedings
or
directions
and
Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS


UKHC010192532026
C528/2391/2026

Rajat Singh
--Applicant

Versus
State Of Uttarakhand
--Respondent

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate for
the applicant.
2. Mr. Vipul Painuly, A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present criminal misc. application is
filed with a prayer to quash/set-aside the
order dated 17.08.2026 passed by learned
ACJM/II Addl. Civil Judge, (Sr. Div.),
Rudrapur, District U.S. Nagar in Criminal
Case No. 7977 of 2022, State Vs. Rajat Singh
and also to quash/set-aside the order dated
17.09.2026 passed by passed by learned
ACJM/II Addl. Civil Judge, (Sr. Div.),
Rudrapur, District U.S. Nagar in Criminal
Case No. 7977 of 2022, State Vs. Rajat Singh,
under Sections 498-A, 323 of IPC and Section
3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending
nd
in the court of learned ACJM/2 Addl. Civil
Judge (Sr. Div.), Rudrapur, District Udham
Singh Nagar. Prayer has also been made to
allow the application dated 24.08.2026 filed
by the applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that by the impugned order, the
application moved by the applicant under

Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed on
totally false, frivolous and non-sustainable
grounds. Learned counsel also submits that
learned Trial Court has not considered the
medical certificate submitted on behalf of the
Advocate, which was submitted and which
was a reason for non-appearance of the
Advocate on the date fixed for cross-
examination of PW1. Learned counsel for the
applicant further submits that finding
recorded by the trial court to the effect that
allowing application under Section 311
Cr.P.C. would amount to recalling of earlier
order dated 17.08.2026 is totally illegal and
unsustainable inasmuch as application under
Section 311 Cr.P.C. can be allowed by the
court at any stage if the Court thinks it fit
that the recalling of witness would be
necessary to meet the interest of justice.
Learned counsel for the applicant also
submits that PW1 is complainant himself and
denying the applicant the opportunity to
cross-examine him would cause grave
prejudice, amount to a denial of a fair trial,
and result in an abuse of the process of law.
Per contra
5. , learned State Counsel would
submit that there is no infirmity in the order
impugned inasmuch as PW1 was examined in
chief on 03.07.2026 and thereafter on the
request of learned counsel for the applicant,
date was fixed for cross-examination of PW1
on 03.08.2026, but, though PW1 was present
in the Court for his cross-examination, but,
the learned counsel for the applicant did not
cross-examine PW1 and move an application
for seeking adjournment; that thereafter
application for adjournment was allowed
subject to the cost of Rs. 1000/- and the next
date fixed in the matter was 17.08.2026; that
on the next date fixed i.e. 17.08.2026, again

adjournment was moved on behalf of the
applicant on the ground that senior counsel
appearing for the applicant is suffering from
viral fever and, as such, cross-examination
could not be conducted. The application for
cross-examination was rejected and the court
passed an order that the opportunity of the
applicant to cross-examine PW1 was closed.
Thereafter, applicant moved an application
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling PW1
and permitting the applicant to cross-examine
PW1. By the impugned order, the said
application has been dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
7. After perusing of the record, it reflects
that PW1 was examined in chief on
03.07.2026. On that date, the applicant did
not cross-examine PW1. The next date fixed in
the matter was 03.08.2026. On that too,
applicant did not cross-examine PW1, but,
instead moved an exemption application. His
exemption application was allowed subject to
the cost of Rs. 1000/- and the next date fixed
in the matter was 17.08.2026. Thereafter, on
the next date fixed i.e. 17.08.2026, again
adjournment was moved on behalf of the
applicant on the ground that senior counsel
appearing for the applicant is suffering from
viral fever and has gone to hospital at
Kashipur for his medical examination.
8. Section 311 of Cr.P.C. provides that ‘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’ and in the present
case, PW1 is the complainant himself,
therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court
thinks it fit and necessary that the applicant

be granted one more opportunity to cross-
examine the PW1/complainant as the
application given by applicant’s counsel for
his non-appearance on the date fixed for
cross-examination was supported by a
medical report and there was genuine reason
for the applicant’s counsel for seeking
exemption on that date.
9. Accordingly, the present criminal misc.
application is allowed. The impugned order
dated 17.09.2026 passed by passed by
learned ACJM/II Addl. Civil Judge, (Sr. Div.),
Rudrapur, District U.S. Nagar in Criminal
Case No. 7977 of 2022, State Vs. Rajat Singh,
under Sections 498-A, 323 of IPC and Section
3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is hereby
set-aside. Consequently, the application dated
24.08.2026 filed by the applicant under
Section 311 Cr.P.C. is allowed, subject to the
condition of applicant paying Rs. 5000/- to
the complainant and furthermore learned
Trial Court is hereby requested to summon
PW1 for cross-examination. However, it is
made clear that if the applicant fails to cross-
examine PW1 on the next date fixed by the
Trial Court concerned, then no further
opportunity would be granted to him.

(Alok Mahra J.)
29.10.2026
Ujjwal