ASHUTOSH PATHAKversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. R1: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH R2: SHIKHA PATHAK

                 [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1831 : 2025 INSC 534

                           Ashutosh Pathak
                                   v.
                   The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
                      R1: State of Uttar Pradesh
                          R2: Shikha Pathak
           (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10852 of 2024)
                                04 February 2025
     [Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ.]


                             Issue for Consideration
       The grievance of the petitioner in the instant case is two-fold. Firstly,
       the in-part acceptance of his application u/s.311 of the CrPC and
       consequent non-summoning of witness-K. Secondly, closure of
       the opportunity to examine the summoned witness-V.

                                    Headnotes†
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.311 – The petitioner
       filed an application u/s.311 of the CrPC/Code for summoning
       two persons, viz., V and K – The Trial Court partly allowed
       the application and issued summons to the witness-V and
       directed him to be present on 30.05.2024 – The record of order/
       proceedings of 30.05.2024 is not available – Thereafter, on
       05.06.2024, though the witness was present, an application was
       moved by the counsel for petitioner on the ground of illness
       and the matter was posted for the next day as last opportunity
       to examine the witness – On 06.06.2024, the witness-V was
       absent and the trial Court closed the opportunity to examine
       the said witness – Aggrieved by the orders dated 18.05.2024
       and 06.06.2024, the petitioner filed application u/s.482 of CrPC
       before the High Court, which was dismissed:
       Held: From the above sequence of events, it is crystal clear that the
       defence was given ample opportunity to examine the witness-V – The
       onus was on them to ensure his presence and examine him – This
       Court does not agree with the argument advanced the petitioner that
       since the witness was arrayed in the list of prosecution witnesses,
       it was incumbent on the prosecution to examine him in the first
       instance – It is also noted that the said witness never entered the
       witness box as a prosecution witness, and he was summoned as
       an independent witness on application made by the petitioner –
* Author
1832                                                           [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


    The statements of the accused persons u/s.313 of the Code were
    recorded on 01.05.2023 – The first application u/s. 311 of the Code
    filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Trial Court on 25.08.2023
    and the matter was posted for defence evidence on 10.09.2023 –
    Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present application under Section
    311 of the Code on 19.09.2023 – Earlier, the High Court vide order
    dated 25.07.2022 had directed expeditious decision in the trial – In
    this factual background, the petitioner cannot be permitted to adopt
    dilatory tactics and delay the conclusion of the trial – The conduct
    of the petitioner in preferring successive applications under Section
    311 of the Code and seeking adjournments goes to show his evasive
    tactics, non-cooperation and disinterest in early conclusion of the
    trial – This is the abuse of the process of law – There is no infirmity
    with the impugned order. [Paras 19, 20]

                              Case Law Cited
    Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana [2023] 11 SCR 723 : 2023 SCC
    OnLine SC 1086 – relied on.

                                List of Acts
    Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860.

                             List of Keywords
    Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Witness; Closure
    of examination of witness; Summoned witness; Dilatory tactics; Delay.

                            Case Arising From
    EXTRAORDINARY CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: Special Leave
    Petition (Criminal) No. 10852 of 2024
    From the Judgment and Order dated 03.07.2024 of the High Court of
    Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in A482 No. 5718 of 2024

                         Appearances for Parties
    Advs. for the Petitioner:
    Varun Mishra, Vikram Pratap Singh, Kranti Pratap Singh, Vaibhav
    Vikram Singh, Anuj Verma, Ankit Jindal, Tushar Rawal.
    Advs. for the Respondents:
    Rohit K. Singh, Pritam Bishwas, Anshuman Siddharth Nayak, Vipin
    Pal, Raja Panda, Rahul Kulhare, Ms. Mahika Malik, Krishan Mourya.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                      1833

         Ashutosh Pathak v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

     Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.

     The present petition arises from the Final Order and Judgment
     dated 03.07.2024 in Application under Section 482 No.5718 of
     2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’) [2024:AHC-
     LKO:45305] passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of
     Judicature at Allahabad, Bench at Lucknow (hereinafter referred to
     as the ‘High Court’), whereby the petitioner’s plea, seeking quashing
     of Orders dated 18.05.2024 and 06.06.2024 passed by the Court
     of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.20,
     Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’)
     in Criminal Case No.7940/2024 [State v Ashutosh Pathak and Ors.],
     was dismissed and the two Orders impugned therein were upheld.

     FACTUAL OVERVIEW:
2.   The marriage between the petitioner and respondent no.2 took
     place on 16.02.2014. There are two issues from the wedlock. On
     30.04.2018, First Information Report No.19/2018 (hereinafter referred
     to as the ‘FIR’) was lodged at P.S. Mahila Thana Gauriganj, Amethi
     under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code,
     1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) alongwith Sections 3 and
     4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the
     ‘DP’ Act) by respondent no. 2-informant against the petitioner, his
     brother, and his parents. It was alleged that after marriage, from the
     beginning, the accused persons started harassing respondent no.2 for
     dowry and demanded Rs.10 Lakhs and 5 Biswa Land in Ambedkar
     Nagar. The petitioner had left the informant and both were living
     separately since a long time. It is the case of the informant, that the
     petitioner’s friend, Vinay Kumar Pathak, called her on 23.04.2018
     saying that the petitioner is very upset and that she should return.
     Accordingly, the informant along with her mother and children went
     to the petitioner’s house on 26.04.2018. The events that took place
     on 28.04.2018 form the gravamen of the allegations. It is alleged that
     on that fateful day, the petitioner came back from college and started
     abusing and hitting the informant. Then, he dragged the informant
     along with her mother and children and locked them in the kitchen.
1834                                                      [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


     Petitioner’s father is said to have stated that they will burn them to
     death. Vinay Kumar Pathak is said to have got the lock opened after
     which the police arrived and rescued the informant and others and
     took them out of the house safely. It is in this background that the
     instant FIR came to be registered.
3.   After conclusion of the investigation, Chargesheet No.32/2018
     was filed on 10.10.2018 against the accused persons. Thereafter,
     Supplementary Chargesheet No.32A/2018 was filed on 04.11.2018
     against the accused persons for commission of offences under
     Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC along with Sections 3
     and 4 of the DP Act. The Chargesheet listed a total of 16 witnesses,
     which included Vinay Kumar Pathak (petitioner’s friend) and Kanak
     Lata Singh (petitioner’s neighbour and sister-in-law). Cognizance on
     the Chargesheet was taken on 22.11.2018 and the accused were
     summoned. The Trial Court framed charges which were read over
     to the accused and upon denial of guilt by them, trial commenced.
4.   On 19.09.2023, the petitioner filed an application under Section 311
     of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
     the ‘Code’) for summoning two persons, viz., Vinay Kumar Pathak
     and Kanak Lata Singh. The Trial Court vide Order dated 18.05.2024
     partly allowed the application and issued summons to the witness-
     Vinay Kumar Pathak and directed him to be present on 30.05.2024.
     The order/proceedings of 30.05.2024, if any, have not been brought
     to our notice. Thereafter, on 05.06.2024, though the witness was
     present, an application was moved by the counsel for petitioner on
     the ground of illness, which was accepted by the Trial Court with cost
     of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) imposed and the matter was
     posted for the next day as last opportunity to examine the witness.
     On 06.06.2024, the witness-Vinay Kumar Pathak was absent and
     the Trial Court closed the opportunity to examine the said witness.
5.   Aggrieved by the Orders dated 18.05.2024 and 06.06.2024, the
     petitioner filed Application under Section 482 No.5718/2024 before
     the High Court, dismissal whereof vide the Impugned Order, has led
     to the instant petition.

     PETITIONER’S SUBMISSIONS:
6.   Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the High Court has
     failed to appreciate that both Vinay Kumar Pathak and Kanak Lata
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                       1835

         Ashutosh Pathak v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


     Singh were arrayed in the list of prosecution witnesses and their
     names also figured in the examination-in-chief of the complainant.
     In such scenario, the Courts below erred in only partly allowing the
     application under Section 311 of the Code.
7.   It was further submitted that the application under Section 311 of
     the Code was filed by the petitioner for production of prosecution
     witnesses and it was partly allowed and witness-Vinay Kumar Pathak
     was summoned. Hence, it was incumbent on the prosecution to
     conduct the examination-in-chief of such witness and only thereafter
     the petitioner would have been able to cross-examine him. It was
     contended that the courts below misinterpreted the inquisitorial
     powers under Section 311 of the Code inasmuch as they have put
     the onus of conducting the examination-in-chief of the witness-Vinay
     Kumar Pathak on the petitioner, which could not have been done
     having regard to the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence.
8.   It was argued that a fundamental error has been committed in closing
     the opportunity to examine the witness-Vinay Kumar Pathak, and the
     same is in ignorance of the well-settled principle, i.e., the witnesses
     who are arrayed in the list of witnesses shall be examined by the
     prosecution and not by the defence at the first instance of examination.
     It was pointed out at the Bar that this witness was neither dropped
     from the list of prosecution witnesses nor was he examined by the
     prosecution. It was urged that the special leave be granted and the
     (consequent) appeal be allowed.

     RESPONDENT NO.2’S SUBMISSIONS:
9.   Per contra, learned counsel for the informant at the outset submits
     that the Impugned Order is well-reasoned and does not call for any
     interference. It was submitted that the High Court by Order dated
     25.07.2022 [2022:AHC-LKO:37885] in Application under Section 483
     No.291/2022 [Shikha Pathak v State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.]
     had directed to expedite the trial in the underlying case, but the
     petitioner has made every attempt to delay the same.
10. It was submitted that the informant/PW1 was examined/cross-
    examined at length as PW1 in 2020-2021. Statements of the accused
    persons under Section 313 of the Code were recorded on 01.05.2023.
    Thereafter, the petitioner only to delay the proceedings on numerous
    occasions sought adjournments and moved applications on vexatious
1836                                                       [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     grounds. Vide Order dated 25.08.2023, the earlier application filed
     by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Code, to re-examine the
     informant, after completion of prosecution evidence and recording
     of Section 313 statement(s), was dismissed by the Trial Court.
     Subsequent thereto, the petitioner had moved the current application
     under Section 311 of the Code, which was only partly allowed by the
     Trial Court. The filing of two separate applications also show that
     the petitioner is trying to delay the trial, contended learned counsel.
11. It was further submitted that the Trial Court permitted the petitioner
    to examine the witness-Vinay Kumar Pathak from the side of the
    defence. The said witness was present in Court on 05.06.2024 since
    the morning, but the petitioner sought an adjournment which was
    also allowed by the Trial Court subject to cost of Rs.1,000/- and the
    case was fixed for 06.06.2024, but on the next day also the petitioner
    sought an adjournment due to which his right to examine the witness
    was closed. It was pointed out that the said witness is the petitioner’s
    friend and permitting the petitioner to examine the said witness, who
    was listed as a prosecution witness, after conclusion of prosecution
    evidence and the process under Section 313 of the Code and at the
    stage of defence evidence, will make the prosecution case doubtful.
    It was submitted that the present appeal be dismissed.

     RESPONDENT NO.1-STATE’S SUBMISSIONS:
12. Learned counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh supported the stand of
    the respondent no.2-informant, adopted the submissions canvassed
    on her behalf and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

     ANALYSIS, REASONING AND CONCLUSION:
13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the
    material on record, at the outset, it would be relevant to understand
    the object and ambit of Section 311 of the Code, which reads as
    follows:
          ‘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
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                           1837

         Ashutosh Pathak v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


           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.’
14. In a decision of recent vintage viz. Satbir Singh v State of Haryana,
    2023 SCC OnLine SC 1086 (penned by one of us, Ahsanuddin
    Amanullah, J.), the Court surveyed the law on the subject. The
    relevant part of the discussion therefrom is extracted hereunder:
           ‘9. Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
           (hereinafter referred to as the “CrPC”) has engaged this
           Court's attention before. We will advert to a few decisions
           of recent vintage. While overturning an order of the High
           Court allowing an application for recall of a witness, which
           was rejected by the trial Court, this Court held as under,
           in Ratanlal v. Prahlad Jat, (2017) 9 SCC 340:
                ‘17. In order to enable the court to find out the truth
                and render a just decision, the salutary provisions
                of Section 311 are enacted whereunder any court
                by exercising its discretionary authority at any
                stage of inquiry, trial or other proceeding can
                summon any person as witness or examine any
                person in attendance though not summoned as
                a witness or recall or re-examine any person
                already examined who are expected to be able
                to throw light upon the matter in dispute. The
                object of the provision as a whole is to do justice
                not only from the point of view of the accused
                and the prosecution but also from the point of
                view of an orderly society. This power is to be
                exercised only for strong and valid reasons
                and it should be exercised with caution and
                circumspection. Recall is not a matter of course
                and the discretion given to the court has to be
                exercised judicially to prevent failure of justice.
                Therefore, the reasons for exercising this power
                should be spelt out in the order.
                18. In Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P. [Vijay Kumar
                v. State of U.P., (2011) 8 SCC 136: (2011) 3 SCC
                (Cri) 371: (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 240], this Court
1838                                                   [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                Supreme Court Reports


        while explaining scope and ambit of Section
        311 has held as under: (SCC p. 141, para 17)
             “17. Though Section 311 confers
             vast discretion upon the court
             and is expressed in the widest
             possible terms, the discretionary
             power under the said section can
             be invoked only for the ends of
             justice. Discretionary power should
             be exercised consistently with the
             provisions of [CrPC] and the principles
             of criminal law. The discretionary
             power conferred under Section 311
             has to be exercised judicially for
             reasons stated by the court and not
             arbitrarily or capriciously.”
        19. In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v. State of
        Gujarat [Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v. State
        of Gujarat, (2006) 3 SCC 374: (2006) 2 SCC
        (Cri) 8], this Court has considered the concept
        underlying under Section 311 as under: (SCC
        p. 392, para 27)
             “27. The object underlying Section
             311 of the Code is that there may
             not be failure of justice on account of
             mistake of either party in bringing the
             valuable evidence on record or leaving
             ambiguity in the statements of the
             witnesses examined from either side.
             The determinative factor is whether it
             is essential to the just decision of the
             case. The section is not limited only
             for the benefit of the accused, and it
             will not be an improper exercise of
             the powers of the court to summon
             a witness under the section merely
             because the evidence supports the
             case of the prosecution and not
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                  1839

         Ashutosh Pathak v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


                     that of the accused. The section is
                     a general section which applies to
                     all proceedings, enquiries and trials
                     under the Code and empowers the
                     Magistrate to issue summons to
                     any witness at any stage of such
                     proceedings, trial or enquiry. In
                     Section 311 the significant expression
                     that occurs is “at any stage of any
                     inquiry or trial or other proceeding
                     under this Code”. It is, however, to
                     be borne in mind that whereas the
                     section confers a very wide power on
                     the court on summoning witnesses,
                     the discretion conferred is to be
                     exercised judiciously, as the wider the
                     power the greater is the necessity for
                     application of judicial mind.”
                20. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav
                [State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Kumar Yadav,
                (2016) 2 SCC 402: (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 510], it
                was held thus: (SCC pp. 404g-405a)
                     “… Certainly, recall could be permitted
                     if essential for the just decision,
                     but not on such consideration as
                     has been adopted in the present
                     case. Mere observation that recall
                     was necessary “for ensuring fair
                     trial” is not enough unless there are
                     tangible reasons to show how the fair
                     trial suffered without recall. Recall
                     is not a matter of course and the
                     discretion given to the court has to
                     be exercised judiciously to prevent
                     failure of justice and not arbitrarily.
                     While the party is even permitted to
                     correct its bona fide error and may
                     be entitled to further opportunity
                     even when such opportunity may be
1840                                                   [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                 Supreme Court Reports


             sought without any fault on the part
             of the opposite party, plea for recall
             for advancing justice has to be bona
             fide and has to be balanced carefully
             with the other relevant considerations
             including un-called for hardship to
             the witnesses and un-called for delay
             in the trial. Having regard to these
             considerations, there is no ground to
             justify the recall of witnesses already
             examined.”
        21. The delay in filing the application is one of
        the important factors which has to be explained
        in the application. In Umar Mohammad v. State
        of Rajasthan [Umar Mohammad v. State of
        Rajasthan, (2007) 14 SCC 711: (2009) 3 SCC
        (Cri) 244], this Court has held as under: (SCC
        p. 719, para 38)
             “38. Before parting, however, we
             may notice that a contention has
             been raised by the learned counsel
             for the appellant that PW 1 who
             was examined in Court on 5-7-
             1994 purported to have filed an
             application on 1-5-1995 stating that
             five accused persons named therein
             were innocent. An application filed by
             him purported to be under Section 311
             of the Code of Criminal Procedure
             was rejected by the learned trial
             Judge by order dated 13-5-1995. A
             revision petition was filed thereagainst
             and the High Court also rejected
             the said contention. It is not a case
             where stricto sensu the provisions of
             Section 311 of the Code of Criminal
             Procedure could have been invoked.
             The very fact that such an application
             was got filed by PW 1 nine months
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                       1841

         Ashutosh Pathak v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


                     after his deposition is itself a pointer
                     to the fact that he had been won
                     over. It is absurd to contend that he,
                     after a period of four years and that
                     too after his examination-in-chief and
                     cross-examination was complete,
                     would file an application on his own
                     will and volition. The said application
                     was, therefore, rightly dismissed.”’
           10. In Manju Devi v. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 6 SCC
           203, this Court emphasized that a discretionary power
           like Section 311, CrPC is to enable the Court to keep the
           record straight and to clear any ambiguity regarding the
           evidence, whilst also ensuring no prejudice is caused to
           anyone. A note of caution was sounded in Swapan Kumar
           Chatterjee v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2019) 14
           SCC 328 as under:
                ‘10. The first part of this section which is
                permissive gives purely discretionary authority
                to the criminal court and enables it at any stage
                of inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the
                Code to act in one of the three ways, namely,
                (i) to summon any person as a witness; or (ii)
                to examine any person in attendance, though
                not summoned as a witness; or (iii) to recall
                and re-examine any person already examined.
                The second part, which is mandatory, imposes
                an obligation on the court (i) to summon and
                examine or (ii) to recall and re-examine any such
                person if his evidence appears to be essential
                to the just decision of the case.
                11. It is well settled that the power conferred
                under Section 311 should be invoked by the
                court only to meet the ends of justice. The
                power is to be exercised only for strong and
                valid reasons and it should be exercised with
                great caution and circumspection. The court
                has vide power under this section to even
1842                                                        [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


                recall witnesses for re-examination or further
                examination, necessary in the interest of justice,
                but the same has to be exercised after taking
                into consideration the facts and circumstances
                of each case. The power under this provision
                shall not be exercised if the court is of the view
                that the application has been filed as an abuse
                of the process of law.
                12. Where the prosecution evidence has
                been closed long back and the reasons for
                non-examination of the witness earlier are not
                satisfactory, the summoning of the witness at
                belated stage would cause great prejudice to the
                accused and should not be allowed. Similarly,
                the court should not encourage the filing of
                successive applications for recall of a witness
                under this provision.’
          11. In Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2023 SCC OnLine
          SC 1023, a 3-Judge Bench of this Court was of the opinion
          that Section 311, CrPC should be invoked when ‘… it is
          essential for the just decision of the case.”
                                                 (emphasis supplied)

15. Having regard to the afore-stated principles, we turn to the facts of
    the instant case. The grievance of the petitioner is two-fold. Firstly,
    the in-part acceptance of his application under Section 311 of the
    Code and consequent non-summoning of witness-Kanak Lata Singh.
    Secondly, closure of the opportunity to examine the summoned
    witness-Vinay Kumar Pathak. Let us examine these issues ad seriatim.
16. The prosecution recorded the statements of the formal witnesses
    but chose to only produce three witnesses (PW1, PW2 and PW3).
    After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the
    petitioner was recorded on 01.05.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner had
    filed an application under Section 311 of the Code for summoning
    Vinay Kumar Pathak and Kanak Lata Singh as independent witnesses.
    As noted previously, from the record, it transpires that Vinay Kumar
    Pathak is a friend of the petitioner and Kanak Lata Singh is the
    sister-in-law as well as neighbour of the petitioner.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                      1843

         Ashutosh Pathak v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


17. The contents of the FIR and the informant’s evidence suggest that
    it was Vinay Kumar Pathak who had made the call to the informant
    and called her to the petitioner’s home. He was also said to have
    been present on the spot of the incident. On the contrary, Kanak
    Lata Singh, though petitioner’s sister-in-law, is a neighbour but no
    material has come on record to suggest that she has any evidence
    to offer which would appear to be essential to the just decision in
    trial. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the Orders of the Courts
    below in denying to issue summons to Kanak Lata Singh.
18. The Trial Court vide Order dated 18.05.2024 directed the accused
    to ensure the presence of Vinay Kumar Pathak on 30.05.2024, on
    which date defence evidence was to be presented. As noted by the
    High Court in the Impugned Order, nothing has been disclosed as to
    what happened on the said date. No order/proceeding of that date
    has been produced even before this Court. Nevertheless, it appears
    that the witness was not examined on the date fixed. Thereafter,
    the matter came up on 05.06.2024, when although the witness was
    present, an adjournment was sought by the defence on the ground
    of ill-health of learned counsel concerned. The Trial Court granted
    the adjournment as a last opportunity and imposed cost of Rs.1,000/-
    on the petitioner. The matter was then taken up on the next day, on
    06.06.2024, when the witness was absent and thus, the Trial Court
    closed the opportunity to examine him.
19. From the above sequence of events, it is crystal clear that the defence
    was given ample opportunity to examine the witness-Vinay Kumar
    Pathak. The onus was on them to ensure his presence and examine
    him. We are not in agreement with the argument advanced by learned
    counsel for the petitioner that since the witness was arrayed in the
    list of prosecution witnesses, it was incumbent on the prosecution
    to examine him in the first instance. We may only note that the said
    witness never entered the witness box as a prosecution witness,
    and he was summoned as an independent witness on application
    made by the petitioner.
20. The statements of the accused persons under Section 313 of the
    Code were recorded on 01.05.2023. The first application under
    Section 311 of the Code filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the
    Trial Court on 25.08.2023 and the matter was posted for defence
    evidence on 10.09.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present
1844                                                      [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


     application under Section 311 of the Code on 19.09.2023. It is to
     be borne in mind that the High Court vide Order dated 25.07.2022
     referred supra had directed expeditious decision in the trial. In this
     factual background, the petitioner cannot be permitted to adopt
     dilatory tactics and delay the conclusion of the trial. The conduct of
     the petitioner in preferring successive applications under Section
     311 of the Code and seeking adjournments, we may add, goes to
     show his evasive tactics, non-cooperation and disinterest in early
     conclusion of the trial. This Court will not be party to such abuse of
     the process of law. On this count too, we do not find any infirmity
     with the Impugned Order.
21. In view of the above, the petition, being devoid of merit, stands
    dismissed. Special leave is refused; the Impugned Order of the High
    Court being well-reasoned is affirmed.
22. No order as to costs. I.A.s No.177474/2024 and 177477/2024 are
    allowed; exemptions sought for are granted.

     Result of the case: Petition dismissed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan