AFR Court No. - 85 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23428 of 2021 Applicant :- Manish Opposite Party :- State Of U.P..And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Sanjay Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Sushma Soni, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-respondents. 2. The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking to quash the order dated 21.09.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC Court No.2, Mainpuri in S.T. No. 393 of 2013 (State vs. Manish and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 407 of 2012, under Sections 452, 302, 364, 201, 34 IPC, P.S. Karhal, District Mainpuri, whereby the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. moved by the applicant has been rejected. 3. While considering the application filed by the accused-applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. the learned trial court has taken notice of the fact that the case was at the stage of final arguments and the witness (PW-1) who was sought to be summoned in terms of the said application had already appeared and had been cross-examined at length by the counsel of the accused-applicant. The trial court on the basis of the aforestated facts has taken a view that in case the accused-applicant wished to impeach the testimony of the PW-1 it would be open for him to do so during the course of final arguments and the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. at this advanced stage of proceedings was only with a view to cause delay in disposal of the case. The application under section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recall of the witness was accordingly rejected. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that the power to summon witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is purely discretionary and in the present case the trial being at the stage of final arguments, the application filed by the applicant/informant could not be said to be bona fide and the court below having exercised its discretionary jurisdiction in the matter no interference was called for. 5. The nature and scope of the power of the court to summon, examine, recall and re-examine any witness in the context of Section 311 Cr.P.C. (and also the corresponding provision as contained in Section 540 of the Old Code of 1898) was subject matter of consideration in Mohanlal Shamji Soni v Union of India and another1, and it was held that the power in this regard is in the widest terms exercisable at any stage so long as the court is in seisin of the proceeding as may be considered essential for a just decision of the case.