JUDGMENT : N. S. Dhanik, J. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is preferred to set aside the order dated 19.10.2019 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar and the entire proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 57 of 2015, "State vs. Mobeen and others", pending in the Court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur District Udha m Singh. 2. In the nutshell, the facts of the case are that an FIR was registered on 10.06.2014 by the second respondent against the two unknown persons regarding murder of his brother-in-law namely Rakesh Kumar which was registered as FIR No. 274 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 342 of I.P.C. registered at PS Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. That after lodging of the FIR the concerned police without being any concrete and credible evidence against the applicants, arrested the applicants and booked in the instant case falsely and thereafter on 10.02.2015, submitted charge-sheet against the applicants under Section 302, 342, 120- B, 34, 394 and 411 of I.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the learned Trial Court had very cursorily rejected the application preferred by the present applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. vide its order dated 19.10.2019. He would submit that during the trial certain important questions relating to the case were left to be asked from PW-2. 4. In the order passed by the learned Trial Court below dated 19.10.2019, the learned Trial Court, after relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Ram Mehar and others, (2016) 8 SCC 762 , held that when the defence had cross-examined the PW-2 in detail and when the defence had not disclosed as to what questions were left to be asked by PW-2, then there is no requirement to call PW-2 for further cross-examination. The learned Trial Court, thereafter, dismissed the application preferred by the applicant herein under Section 311 Cr. P.C. 5. After going through the order passed by the learned Trial Court, this Court is of the view that there is no such infirmity in the said order, which would require interference by this Court. 6. The present C-482 application is, accordingly, dismissed.