JUDGMENT Mr. Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.:- The petitioner stands convicted vide judgment dated 19.8.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala under Sections 354, 451 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner preferred an appeal which is pending before the Sessions Judge, Patiala. During the pendency of the first appeal before the lower Appellate Court, petitioner moved an application under Section 311 read with Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recalling of complainant, namely, Kamlesh Devi for further cross-examination. Such application stands rejected by the Sessions Judge, Patiala vide order dated 4.1.2014, Annexure P3. 2. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the order dated 4.1.2014 at Annexure P3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length and the case paper book has been perused. 4. Undisputedly, the petitioner moved an application for recalling complainant Kamlesh Devi for further cross-examination solely on the ground that the previous counsel had not put certain questions to the prosecutrix. That apart, learned counsel has not been able to rebut the factual matrix as noticed in the impugned order that the prosecutrix had been partly examined on 13.10.2011 and thereafter, she had been cross-examined at length on 28.2.2013 after the matter had been deferred on a number of occasions so as to facilitate the learned counsel to cross-examine her. 5. Under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it would not be open for the petitioner to sustain an application to re-summon the prosecutrix for further cross-examination belatedly and that too on the sole basis of a change of counsel. In Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, [2007(4) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 2638] : 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 826, this Court while examining a similar issue had observed as under: “After hearing counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondent-State and going through the record of the case, I am of the opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable. The trial Court has resummoned the prosecutrix at a belated stage without any justification. She was thoroughly cross examined by counsel for the accused. Merely with the change of a counsel, a witness cannot be recalled for further cross-examination.” 6. For the reasons recorded above, I find no patent infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 4.1.2014 at Annexure P3. 7. She was thoroughly cross examined by counsel for the accused. Merely with the change of a counsel, a witness cannot be recalled for further cross-examination.” 6. For the reasons recorded above, I find no patent infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 4.1.2014 at Annexure P3. 7. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.