MP HC Upholds Refusal To Recall Complainant: New Lawyer’s View Alone, Without Specific Questions, Was Not Enough

The applicants, who were facing trial for offences under Sections 279, 294, 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC, had cross-examined the complainant, Sandeep Sengar.

After engaging new counsel, they applied under Section 311 CrPC, corresponding to Section 348 BNSS, to recall the complainant for further cross-examination, asserting that material questions had been omitted.

The Magistrate rejected the application because it did not identify the proposed questions or explain why they had not been put earlier.

The applicants challenged that order under Section 528 BNSS.

Section 311 CrPC, corresponding to Section 348 BNSS, provides for the recall or further examination of a witness where warranted for a just decision; however, the right to a fair trial does not confer an unrestricted right to recall a witness.

Section 528 BNSS permits the High Court to intervene where the requisite grounds for its inherent jurisdiction are made out.

A change of counsel, without specific particulars showing why further examination is necessary, does not by itself justify reopening cross-examination.

The complainant had already been cross-examined, and the applicants’ application did not identify the particular matters on which further questioning was sought or explain why those matters had not been addressed earlier.

The new counsel’s view that questions had been omitted was insufficient, without supporting particulars, to establish that recalling the complainant was necessary for a just decision.

The trial court had considered the relevant circumstances and given cogent reasons for refusing recall; the High Court therefore found no basis for intervention under Section 528 BNSS.

The application was dismissed, and the Magistrate’s order dated 13 July 2026 was affirmed.