Sanjay Kumar Srivastava vs State Of U.P. And Another

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party no.1.

2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by applicant/accused with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 01.08.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Bulandshahar through which application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. preferred at the behest of prosecution was allowed filed in Criminal Case No.1860 of 2018 (State vs. Sanjay Srivastava), arising out of Case Crime No.704 of 2010, under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahar.

3. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that by bare perusal of ordersheet, it is evident that at any point of time, trial was delayed at the behest of applicant and it is the prosecution witnesses who were not appearing before learned court concerned for recording their statements during trial due to which, vide order dated 17.03.2025, learned trial court concerned closed the evidence of prosecution. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that statement of applicant/accused has also been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for applicant application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was preferred at the behest of prosecution on dated 01.08.2025 and on the same very date, it was allowed without giving proper opportunity to contest the same. Learned counsel for applicant further contended that applicant is aged about 56 years and due to pendency of the present case, termination from the service of applicant is going on and as such, impugned order may be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer sought through the instant application and submitted that for fair trial, it is necessary to record the statements of prosecution witnesses and as such, order impugned is just and proper.

5. Before arriving over any conclusion, it is apt to reproduce Section 311 Cr.P.C. which is as under :-

"Section 311 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

311. Power to summon material witness, or examine person present. Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or. recall and re- examine any person already examined; and 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."

6. By bare perusal of provisions of the said section, it is apparent that power conferred under Section 311 Cr.P.C. may be invoked by the court concerned at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceedings only to meet the ends of justice. The aim of every court is to discover the truth. Section 311 Cr.P.C. is one of many such provisions which strengthen the arms of a court in its effort to unearth the truth by procedure sanctioned by law. At the same time, the discretionary power vested under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised judiciously for strong and valid reasons and with caution and circumspection to meet the ends of justice and as such, it cannot be said that by allowing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. preferred at the behest of prosecution, learned court concerned have committed manifest error.

7. In view thereof, the present application being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

October 27, 2025

Vivek Kr.