Delhi High Court ruling in Hippocampus Infotech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr. (decided 17 April 2025):
Headnotes
Section 311 CrPC – Scope of recall Power to summon or recall witnesses under Section 311 CrPC is discretionary, exercised only for strong and valid reasons, with caution and circumspection. Recall is not a matter of course. (Paras 8–9)
Cross‑examination – Closure due to counsel’s absence Petitioners’ right to cross‑examine complainant closed after repeated adjournments and non‑appearance; plea of counsel’s illness unsupported by medical records. (Paras 6–7, 10)
Delay in application – Relevant factor Application for recall filed belatedly after closure of defence evidence; unexplained delay militates against exercise of Section 311 discretion. (Paras 7, 21)
Supreme Court precedents – Recall principles Court cited Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P. (2011), Shiv Kumar Yadav (2016), Ratanlal v. Prahlad Jat (2017), Manju Devi (2019), Swapan Kumar Chatterjee (2019), and Satbir Singh (2023) to emphasize recall only when essential for just decision. (Paras 9–10)
Conduct of petitioners – Dilatory tactics Petitioners repeatedly defaulted, NBWs issued and cancelled, adjournments granted liberally; trial court observed intent to delay proceedings. (Para 10)
Change of complainant’s name – No fresh right Mere change of complainant company’s name did not confer fresh right of cross‑examination. (Para 10)
Petition dismissed – No infirmity High Court upheld trial court’s order dated 20.07.2024 dismissing recall application; petition found devoid of merit. (Paras 11–12)
