Prolonged, Irrelevant Cross-Examination Constitutes Harassment and Cannot Justify Witness Recall Under Section 311 CrPC

The petitioner, an accused in a criminal trial, cross-examined prosecution witness Vinod Kumar Kapila for three days, resulting in 35 pages of testimony.

The Trial Court closed the right of cross-examination on 20.06.2025.

The petitioner subsequently filed an application to recall the witness, asserting that further examination was necessary to extract the truth from an "intellectual class" witness and to substantiate a future claim for compensation under Section 250 of the Cr.P.C.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, dismissed the application on 06.03.2026, holding it would amount to an impermissible review of its own order and that the witness could not be harassed further.

The petitioner challenged this order before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act, which mandates that evidence may only be given of facts in issue or relevant facts.

The Court has the discretion to control prolix, repetitive, or irrelevant cross-examination to prevent witness harassment and waste of public time, as established in Public Prosecutor v. Repalli Ramadoss and Govind v. State of M.P.

Principles of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dictate that such power should be exercised sparingly and only to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, as summarized in Didigam Bikshapathi v. State of A.P. and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.

The Court observed that the petitioner had already conducted an extensive 35-page cross-examination over three days.

The Court reasoned that while cross-examination is vital for truth-seeking, it cannot be used as a weapon of harassment or to prolong litigation indefinitely.

The Court found that the petitioner’s primary justification for recall—establishing a claim for compensation under Section 250 Cr.P.C.—did not fall under any provision of the Indian Evidence Act regarding relevancy or "facts in issue" for the criminal trial itself.

Relying on Sris Chandra Nandy v. Rakhalananda, the Court noted that judges cannot admit evidence merely because it might "throw light" on a matter if it is not legally admissible under the statute.

Since the petitioner admitted there was already sufficient material for an acquittal, the refusal to recall the witness did not constitute an "extraordinary situation" or an "abuse of process" necessitating the use of inherent powers.

The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Trial Court did not err in refusing to recall the witness, noting the petitioner has alternative remedies such as filing a suit for malicious prosecution.