Order : ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.07.2022 passed by the Trial Court, the instant misc. petition has been filed. 2. By passing the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been rejected and the prayer of the petitioner to cross-examine the witness-Pawan Soni has been declined. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cross- examination is a statutory right of an accused which has been denied to him by passing the order impugned. Counsel submits that last opportunity be granted to the petitioner, so that cross-examination can be done with the complainant. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer and submitted that only with a view to delay the disposal of the matter, cross-examination was not done by the petitioner and thereafter, the application was submitted with a grave delay. Hence under these circumstances, the trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Natasha Singh Vs. CBI (State), reported in (2013) 5 SCC 741 has held in para 15 and 16 as under:- “15. The scope and object of the provision is to enable the court to determine the truth and to render a just decision after discovering all relevant facts and obtaining proper proof of such facts, to arrive at a just decision of the case. Power must be exercised judiciously and not capriciously or arbitrarily, as any improper or capricious exercise of such power may lead to undesirable results. An application under Section 311 CrPC must not be allowed only to fill up a lacuna in the case of the prosecution, or of the defence, or to the disadvantage of the accused, or to cause serious prejudice to the defence of the accused, or to give an unfair advantage to the opposite party. Further, the additional evidence must not be received as a disguise for retrial, or to change the nature of the case against either of the parties. Further, the additional evidence must not be received as a disguise for retrial, or to change the nature of the case against either of the parties. Such a power must be exercised, provided that the evidence that is likely to be tendered by a witness, is germane to the issue involved. An opportunity of rebuttal however, must be given to the other party. The power conferred under Section 311 CrPC 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 great caution and circumspection. The very use of words such as "any Court", "at any stage”, or "or any enquiry, trial or other proceedings", "any person" and "any such person" clearly spells out that the provisions of this section have been expressed in the widest possible terms, and do not limit the discretion of the Court in any way. There is thus no escape if the fresh evidence to be obtained is essential to the just decision of the case. The determinative factor should therefore be, whether the summoning/recalling of the said witness is in fact, essential to the just decision of the case.” 16. Fair trial is the main object of criminal procedure, and it is the duty of the court to ensure that such fairness is not hampered or threatened in any manner. Fair trial entails the interests of the accused, the victim and of the society, and therefore, fair trial includes the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the person concerned, and the same must be ensured as this is a constitutional, as well as a human right…...” 7. Perusal of the record indicates that on the fateful day when the case was posted for cross-examination, the same could not be done due to paucity of time. Thereafter, the opportunity of cross- examination of the petitioner was closed in the year 2015. This fact is not in dispute that the application was submitted by the petitioner after a delay but this fact cannot be overlooked by this Court that cross-examination is a statutory right of an accused, for conducting a fair trial, hence, appropriate opportunity is required to be given to the accused and the complainant can be compensated by awarding adequate amount of cost/compensation. 8. 8. It is well settled proposition of law that fair trial is the main object of criminal procedure and right of cross-examination is a part of right of fair trial which every person has in the spirit of right to life and personal liberty. The petitioner has been deprived with this opportunity of cross-examination. In the interest of justice, one last opportunity is granted to the petitioner to cross-examine this witness. 9. In view of the above, the instant writ petition stands allowed and the impugned order dated 30.07.2022 stands quashed and set aside. One more opportunity is granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant-Pawan Soni, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant. 10. It is made clear that on the next date fixed before the Trial Court, one more opportunity will be granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the witness-Pawan Soni, on payment of cost of Rs.15,000/- in advance. 11. It is further made clear that in case, the petitioner fails to pay the cost of Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant and he further fails to cross-examine him on the next date, no further opportunity would be granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the witness-Pawan Soni. 12. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.