JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal miscellaneous petition is directed against order dated 23.7.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities), Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 20/2005, whereby an application preferred by the Public Prosecutor under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning two witnesses has been partly allowed and accordingly, Smt. Gurmeet Kaur has been summoned as witness. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the order impugned passed by the Court below is contrary to law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is manifest abuse of the process of the Court. Learned-counsel submitted that the evidence of the prosecution so also of defence already stand concluded and the accused persons have also been examined in terms of provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C., therefore, at this stage, the Court below was not justified in summoning a new witness at the instance of the prosecution. It is submitted by the learned counsel that as a matter of fact, the final arguments in the matter were also concluded but the judgment could not be pronounced by the Court and therefore, the order impugned summoning the witness at such a belated stage cannot but deemed to be abuse of the process of law and therefore, not sustainable in the eye of law. 3. Indisputably, the provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C. are enacted to enable the Court to 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 to find out the truth and render a just decision. The discretion vested with the Court is wide and is not circumscribed by any conditions. It is true that the power vested in the Court needs to be exercised with care and caution and sparingly but then, to prevent the failure of justice and for just decision of the Court, the discretion vested can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the trial. As a matter of fact, if evidence of any person is considered essential for just decision of the case, then trial Court is under an obligation to summon such person as witness. There is no bar that a witness whose statement had not been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. cannot be summoned as witness. As a matter of fact, if evidence of any person is considered essential for just decision of the case, then trial Court is under an obligation to summon such person as witness. There is no bar that a witness whose statement had not been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. cannot be summoned as witness. In this regard, reliance may be placed on a decision of this Court in Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan, 2003 Cri.L.J. 4704 (Raj.) . 4. It is to be noticed that in the written report filed by the complainant Buta Singh alongwith victim Smt. Gurpreet Kaur, it was specifically mentioned that Smt. Gurmeet Kaur attempted to extinguish the fire. Suffice it to say that the presence of Smt. Gurmeet Kaur is alleged to be there just after the incident occurred. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in considered opinion of this Court, Smt. Gurmeet Kaur, who has been summoned as witness is a material witness and therefore, trial Court has committed no error in summoning the witness whose examination is considered essential to find out the truth and for just decision of the case, even at such a belated stage i.e. after conclusion of the evidence of both the parties. 5. For the aforementioned reasons, the order impugned passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. In the result, the criminal miscellaneous petition fails, it is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******