The High Court of Delhi has upheld a Trial Court’s decision to restrict the recall of a complainant to cross-examination only, ruling that Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) cannot be utilized to reopen the prosecution case by introducing fresh testimony a decade after the original evidence was recorded. The Court, presided over by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, emphasized that allowing a fresh examination-in-chief at such a belated stage would prejudice the accused and permit the introduction of allegations not present in the original records.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Meenakshi Gautam, and respondent no. 2 were married in 2004. In 2006, following allegations of assault, an FIR (No. 312/2006) was registered in Bangalore under Sections 498A, 323, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). A chargesheet was filed in 2008, and the petitioner’s examination-in-chief was recorded before the ACMM, Bangalore, on two separate dates: April 12, 2012, and May 24, 2014.
After the 2014 hearing, the matter was adjourned for cross-examination. However, the petitioner filed various applications, including one under Section 173(8) CrPC for further investigation, which eventually reached the Hon’ble Supreme Court. On January 28, 2025, the Supreme Court set aside a Karnataka High Court order for further investigation, noting that the request was highly belated and appeared to be a “handle to the complainant to improve upon her initial version.” The Supreme Court granted the petitioner liberty to move an application under Section 311 CrPC for redressal.
Subsequently, the case was transferred to Delhi. After the petitioner was dropped as a witness due to non-appearance, the prosecution moved an application under Section 311 CrPC. The Trial Court allowed the recall but restricted it to cross-examination only.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Submissions: Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Trial Court erred in not permitting further examination-in-chief. They contended that several incidents of cruelty were not properly recorded in Bangalore because the proceedings were conducted in Kannada, which the petitioner did not understand. It was further argued that the liberty granted by the Supreme Court was not restricted to cross-examination and that further deposition was essential to bring the complete facts on record.
Respondent’s Submissions: Counsel for respondent no. 2 argued that the examination-in-chief had already been recorded at length on two occasions. They contended that the petitioner sought further examination-in-chief only to level “fresh and false allegations” against the father-in-law and brother-in-law, who were not implicated in the earlier versions recorded in 2012 and 2014. They maintained that the Trial Court’s order was balanced and necessary to prevent prejudice to the defense.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court observed that the power under Section 311 CrPC must be exercised in accordance with well-settled parameters. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that the petitioner’s examination-in-chief was already part of the record and that the language issue was being raised at a “belated stage, after the passage of several years.”
Referencing the Supreme Court’s earlier observations in the same case (Rampal Gautam v. State), the Court highlighted that the Apex Court had already noted the absence of allegations against the in-laws in the initial FIR and the 2012 deposition.
Regarding the scope of Section 311 CrPC, Justice Sharma observed:
“This Court is of the view that permitting further examination-in-chief at this stage would effectively mean reopening testimony that was recorded more than a decade earlier, i.e., in the years 2012 and 2014. Such reopening of evidence, particularly when the petitioner had already entered the witness box and her examination-in-chief had been recorded on two occasions, cannot ordinarily be permitted unless compelling circumstances are shown.”
The Court further stated:
“In the opinion of this Court, the learned Trial Court has exercised its discretion under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. in a judicious manner. By permitting recall of the complainant for cross-examination, the learned Trial Court has ensured that the testimony already recorded does not go out of consideration, while at the same time safeguarding the rights of the accused. On the other hand, permitting a fresh or further examination-in-chief at this stage would amount to reopening the prosecution case and allowing the petitioner to introduce allegations which were not part of the FIR or earlier testimony recorded on two occasions in the past.”
The Decision
The High Court found no infirmity or illegality in the Trial Court’s order dated March 11, 2026. The Court concluded that the Trial Court had adopted a balanced approach by permitting the recall for the purpose of cross-examination, which was the stage at which the matter had remained pending earlier. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Case Details:
Case Title: Meenakshi Gautam vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Case No.: CRL.M.C. 2325/2026 & CRL.M.A. 9469/2026
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Date: April 15, 2026
