JUDGMENT : 1. The applicant Indradev Seth, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Court with prayer to quash the summoning order dated 21.11.2019, passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Mirzapur, in S.T. No. 43 of 2016 (State of U.P. Vs. Suraj Seth and others), under Section 498A, 304B, 201 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station-Ahrora, District-Mirzapur, pending before the Court of learned Additional Session Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Mirzapur. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that file was scheduled for judgement but trial Court, vide impugned order, summoned two witnesses under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., whereas no such argument was ever raised either by prosecution or by defence side nor those witnesses were necessary for their evidence. Rather, Court became bias, after filing of a written argument by defence side and this argument was gone through by the Presiding Judge. But no where this was mentioned in order-sheet that this argument was filed. Then after for deferring delivery of judgment, this impugned order has been passed. Many other arguments regarding facts of case, were argued but the same are not concerned with disposal of present matter, in issue. Hence, need not to be mentioned. 4. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the above prayer. 5. The sole question is whether trial Judge was justified in passing impugned order or not. 6. No doubt Section 311 of Cr.P.C., provides power to trial Judge for summoning any of the witness being needed for the just decision of case before delivery of judgement at any stage. 7. Section 311 Cr.P.C. provides "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." 8. It is crystal clear that the Court is empowered to summon any person as witness, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding. It is crystal clear that the Court is empowered to summon any person as witness, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding. The power is not confined to any particular class or person. It is settled law that if the conditions under this Section is satisfied, the Court can call a witness not only on the motion of either of the prosecution or defence but also it can do so on its own motion. Any person can be summoned as a witness or recalled or re-examined at any stage of proceeding, where those ingredients is present and this has been propounded by Apex Court in Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs Union Of India And Another, 1991 CriLJ 1521. Learned counsel for the applicant has pressed law of Apex Court in Raja Ram Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and another, AIR 2013 SC 3081 , where this power of trial court to summon, recall or re-examine any person, has been stated as follows : (B) Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), S. 311 -Power of Court to summon, recall or re-examine any person -Exercise of -Governing principles. While dealing with an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. read along with Section 138 of the Evidence Act, we feel the following principles will have to be borne in mind by the Courts: (a) Whether the Court is right in thinking that the new evidence is needed by it? Whether the evidence sought to be led in under Section 311 is noted by the Court for a just decision of a case? (b) The exercise of the widest discretionary power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should ensure that the judgment should not be rendered on inchoate, inconclusive speculative presentation of facts, as thereby the ends of justice would be defeated. (c) If evidence of any witness appears to the Court to be essential to the just decision of the case, it is the power of the Court to summon and examine or recall and reexamine any such person. (d) The exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should be resorted to only with the object of finding out the truth or obtaining proper proof for such facts, which will lead to a just and correct decision of the case. (d) The exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should be resorted to only with the object of finding out the truth or obtaining proper proof for such facts, which will lead to a just and correct decision of the case. (e) The exercise of the said power cannot be dubbed as filling in a lacuna in a prosecution case, unless the facts and circumstances of the case make it apparent that the exercise of power by the Court would result in causing serious prejudice to the accused, resulting in miscarriage of justice. (f) The wide discretionary power should be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. (g) The Court must satisfy itself that it was in every respect essential to examine such a witness or to recall him for further examination in order to arrive at a just decision of the case. (h) The object of Section 311 Cr.P.C. simultaneously imposes a duty on the Court to determine the truth and to render a just decision. (i) The Court arrives at the conclusion that additional evidence is necessary, not because it would be impossible to pronounce the judgment without it, but because there would be a failure of justice without such evidence being considered. (j) Exigency of the situation, fair play and good sense should be the safe guard, while exercising the discretion. The Court should bear in mind that no party in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors and that if proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the Court should be magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to be rectified. (k) The Court should be conscious of the position that after all the trial is basically for the prisoners and the Court should afford an opportunity to them in the fairest manner possible. In that parity of reasoning, it would be safe to err in favour of the accused getting an opportunity rather than protecting the prosecution against possible prejudice at the cost of the accused. The Court should bear in mind that improper or capricious exercise of such a discretionary power, may lead to undesirable results. (l) The additional evidence must not be received as a disguise or to change the nature of the case against any of the party. The Court should bear in mind that improper or capricious exercise of such a discretionary power, may lead to undesirable results. (l) The additional evidence must not be received as a disguise or to change the nature of the case against any of the party. (m) The power must be exercised keeping in mind that the evidence that is likely to be tendered, would be germane to the issue involved and also ensure that an opportunity of rebuttal is given to the other party. (n) The power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must therefore, be invoked by the Court only in order to meet the ends of justice for strong and valid reasons and the same must be exercised with care, caution and circumspection. The Court should bear in mind that fair trial entails the interest of the accused, the victim and the society and, therefore, the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the persons concerned, must be ensured being a constitutional goal, as well as a human right. 9. Meaning thereby, just and proper decision is to be seen by trial Court for summoning any witness, under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. Court may summon, upon motion moved by either side or by suo moto, if it finds it necessary. Now in case in hand, it has been written in First Information Report that information of alleged disease of deceased was communicated to informant by some Mohan Seth. Subsequently, this Mohan Seth apprised that deceased had died. Now Mohan Seth was shown as a witness but prosecution not examined this witness. This was a plea by defence that no such occurrence ever occurred. Rather it was a natural death, owing to ailment, for which deceased was being taken for her treatment. Meaning thereby, the bona fide of accused that he communicated one relative of informant about disease of deceased and he communicated instantly to informant about this ailment of deceased, is a crucial point and if Mohan Seth proves it that he had been informed by accused side that deceased was under ailment and was taken for treatment, then it will prove the bona fide of accused persons, that will substantiate the plea of defence. Subsequently, information of death, being said to be given to Mohan Seth and communicated to informant by Mohan Seth, is also of that much crucial nature. Subsequently, information of death, being said to be given to Mohan Seth and communicated to informant by Mohan Seth, is also of that much crucial nature. Hence, Mohan Seth was an important witness to be examined before trial Court for appreciation of this aspect that accused persons did informed Mohan Seth about disease of deceased and she being taken for treatment. Hence, trial Judge rightly concluded for summoning Mohan Seth, for his examination and this examination will be helpful for accused himself, in case he proves so. By examining this witness the real and just decision will be passed. 10. Regarding other witnesses, driver of that tempo, by which deceased was said to be taken to hospital for treatment and if it is so and proved on record, then, bona fide of accused persons and plea of defence, will be substantiated. Either prosecution or defence itself ought to examine these witnesses, for fortifying their plea and placing their bona fide but unfortunately these witnesses are not examined and for reaching correct and just decision in judicial decision making, their evidence was must and in course with guidelines given by Apex Court, narrated as above. Accordingly, there is nothing wrong in the impugned order. This application merits its dismissal. 11. Dismissed, as such.