ORDER : BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU, J. S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4426/2024 1.The instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 528 of the BNSS , 2023, has been preferred against the order dated 01.07.2024 passed by the Children's Court, Pratapgarh, whereby application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling PW-3 has been allowed. 2. The facts of the present case are that the offence alleged against the accused is under Section 302 of IPC . One of the accused is Prince @ Pratham, who is a minor and whose trial is pending before the Children's Court, Pratapgarh being Sessions Case No.69/2022. The other accused is Jitu @ Kana, who is a major and his trial is going on before the Sessions Court, Pratapgarh, in Session Case No.20/2023. 3. Since the learned Sessions Judge is also the Presiding Officer of the Children Court, the trials of both the cases are proceeding simultaneously. In the case pending before the Children Court, Pratapgarh, witness PW-3 Lokendra Singh was examined on 27.04.2023. Thereafter, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. came to be filed on 08.02.2024 stating that during the cross- examination, certain major questions had been left out, therefore the witness be recalled for further cross-examination. The said application was, however, found to be devoid of merits, and the court, after considering the fact that a detailed cross-examination had already been conducted by the learned counsel for the accused, found no ground to recall the witness. Accordingly, the application was rejected vide order dated 21.02.2024. 4. Thereafter, another application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed on 15.03.2024 for recalling the witness Lokendra Singh for recording his evidence, alleging that the accused had received a letter from Lokendra Singh dated 06.03.2024, wherein he stated that he had not witnessed the incident and that after giving statements in court, he was feeling guilty. He further expressed remorse and sought forgiveness for the same. The learned trial court, after hearing the matter, allowed the same vide order dated 01.07.2024. As per the order dated 01.07.2024, Lokendra Singh was present before the learned trial court and admitted writing such a letter and stated that he had given statements in the court on being asked by the brother of the deceased. The learned trial court, considering the fact that the letter was written after the cross-examination and treating it as a change in circumstances, held that he needs to be recalled. The learned trial court, considering the fact that the letter was written after the cross-examination and treating it as a change in circumstances, held that he needs to be recalled. Based upon these reasons, the application was allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while laying challenge to the order, stated that earlier an application was already rejected vide order dated 21.02.2024 for recalling PW-3, however, by creating a subsequent and artificial ground, another application was filed after a lapse of about one year from recording of the statements. The counsel has also submitted the letter dated 06.03.2024, which is alleged to be written by Lokendra Singh, for perusal of the Court. In view of the same, he submits that even the letter, on the face of it, does not state that the witness was ever threatened or had deposed in the court under any pressure. He submits that it is not a case of threat or coercion, and no such statements can be recorded upon the mere volition of the witness once statements on oath have been recorded and he has been thoroughly cross-examined. Thus, he submits that the impugned order may be quashed and set aside as there is no ground for recalling the witness while exercising powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 6. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swapan Kumar Chatterjee vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2019) 14 SCC 328 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the statements made by the witness on the earlier occasion were not correct and that thereafter, having felt deep remorse, he sought to have his statement recorded again. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of the Court towards the letter as well as the stand of the witness before the trial court. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajaram Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2013) 14 SCC 461 I have considered the arguments raised by the parties and have perused the material available on record. 8. The record reveals that witness Lokendra Singh (PW-3) was present before the court on 27.04.2023 and after his chief examination, he was cross-examined by the counsel for the accused at length. reported in (2013) 14 SCC 461 I have considered the arguments raised by the parties and have perused the material available on record. 8. The record reveals that witness Lokendra Singh (PW-3) was present before the court on 27.04.2023 and after his chief examination, he was cross-examined by the counsel for the accused at length. Thereafter, apparently to overcome perceived deficiencies in the cross-examination, an application was filed on behalf of the accused after the change of counsel, stating therein that on a few major issues, the cross-examination was not done by the earlier counsel and therefore the witness needs to be recalled. This application was dismissed vide order dated 21.02.2024 by the learned trial court clearly holding that since the witness was cross-examined in detail, the omission of a few questions cannot be a ground for recall. 9. It appears that having failed to recall the witness on the ground mentioned in the application dated 08.02.2024, a subsequent attempt was made to seek recall on a different pretext. 10. It is relevant to note that the earlier application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. as well as the subsequent application have been filed after a change of counsel, and the present letter also appears to have been written after obtaining legal advice. Upon perusal of the letter dated 06.03.2024, this Court finds that it does not state that the earlier statements were recorded under any threat, coercion, or undue influence. The entire tenor of the letter merely reflects remorse and a request for forgiveness addressed to father of accused. No allegation of pressure or compulsion in giving testimony before the Court finds mention in the letter. 11. It is only subsequently, when the application was taken up, that the witness appeared before the Court and made an improved statement, alleging that the earlier statements before the police were given under pressure of police, and for the court statement he was brought forcefully by the brother of the deceased. Even then, there is no assertion that his testimony before the Court was recorded under threat or coercion. 12. The statements were recorded before the Court on 27.04.2023, and the witness was thoroughly cross-examined. Thereafter, after a lapse of nearly one year, the witness chose to raise an allegation of influence. There is no explanation whatsoever for this prolonged silence. Even then, there is no assertion that his testimony before the Court was recorded under threat or coercion. 12. The statements were recorded before the Court on 27.04.2023, and the witness was thoroughly cross-examined. Thereafter, after a lapse of nearly one year, the witness chose to raise an allegation of influence. There is no explanation whatsoever for this prolonged silence. The statements were recorded in open court and the witness had every opportunity to bring any such grievance to the notice of the Presiding Officer, which he admittedly did not do. In such circumstances, no material exists on record to create any reasonable doubt that the earlier testimony was recorded under threat or coercion. The letter itself does not support such a plea. The sequence of events clearly indicates that the present application is an afterthought and lacks bonafides. 13. That apart, the signature appearing on the letter is completely different from the signature of Lokendra Singh on the court statements, thereby casting serious doubt on the authenticity and reliability of the document forming the basis of the recall application. Even otherwise, the letter does not disclose any ground for recalling the witness, even if taken at its face value. Further, the mere fact that a witness seeks to change his stand after having been examined and cross-examined nearly a year earlier, cannot be a ground for recall under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swapan Kumar Chatterjee vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (supra) has clearly held that the Court should not encourage filing of successive applications for recall of a witness. Further, the power under section 311 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised if the Court is of the view that the application has been filed as an abuse of the process of law. 15. The Apex Court in Rajaram Prasad Yadav (supra) has laid down exhaustive principles for considering an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. It has, inter alia, been laid down that the power under Cr.P.C. must be invoked to meet the ends of justice for strong and valid reasons, and the same must be exercised with care, caution, and circumspection. Further, additional evidence must not be received as a disguise or to change the nature of the case against any party. 16. Further, additional evidence must not be received as a disguise or to change the nature of the case against any party. 16. The Apex Court, while dealing with facts similar to those of the present case, rejected the application under Section 311 , holding that an application seeking permission of the Court under Cr.P.C. for re-examination, merely on the allegation that the witness had earlier turned hostile under coercion and threat, allegedly extended at the instance of the appellant and other accused, lacked bona fides. 17. Similarly, after considering the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the application filed by the applicant/accused is devoid of bonafides. The prayer for recalling the witness is founded on vague, belated, and unsubstantiated grounds. The earlier application for recalling the same witness had already been dismissed, and thereafter the present application was filed solely on the basis of a questionable letter, which clearly amounts to abuse of process of law. The reasons recorded by the learned trial court in its order dated 01.07.2024 disclose that, the application was allowed solely on the ground that the letter was written after the cross-examination, and was treated as a change in circumstances. Such reasoning does not constitute a legally sustainable or justifiable ground for invoking Section 311 Cr.P.C. 18. Allowing such re-examination would dilute the sanctity and evidentary value of statements made on oath before the Court. If such a course is permitted, it would open the floodgates for witnesses to resile from their testimony at will, thereby undermining the discipline of judicial proceedings and the fairness of trial. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed, and the order impugned dated 01.07.2024 passed by the Children's Court, Pratapgarh, in Sessions Case No.69/2022 is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. also stands dismissed. S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 10402/2025 20. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been preferred being aggrieved against the order dated 29.11.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, by which the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh refrained from passing any order, upon the application filed for recalling of the witness Lokendra Singh @ Lucky under Sections 94 , 348 of BNSS and Section 168 of BSA , in view of the pendency and stay in the above-mentioned criminal misc. petition No. 4426/2024. 21. petition No. 4426/2024. 21. This Court has considered the facts of the case. In the present case the application for re-calling the witness Lokendra Singh @ Lucky was preferred on the same set of facts, as in the connected Sessions Case No.69/2022. Although, no order was passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh upon the application in this case, however, as in the connected matter Crl.M.P. No. 4426/2024, this Court has already set aside the order dated 01.07.2024 passed by the Children's Court, Pratapgarh, and has dismissed the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., for the reasons mentioned therein, the present Criminal Misc. Petition is also dismissed. As a result the application filed for re-calling of the witness also stands rejected. 22. Learned trial court is directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.