In a significant ruling on the scope of recalling witnesses, the Delhi High Court has declined a plea seeking fresh testimony by a complainant in a matrimonial cruelty case. The Court held that reopening examination-in-chief after years would be unjustified, especially when earlier statements had already been recorded.
Background of the Case
The case arose from allegations of cruelty and harassment following a marriage solemnized in 2004. The complainant had earlier filed an FIR under Sections 498A, 323, and 506 of the IPC in Bengaluru.
Her examination-in-chief was recorded twice-in 2012 and 2014-before the trial court in Bengaluru. However, she did not appear for cross-examination and was eventually dropped as a witness in 2025.
Later, after the matter was transferred to Delhi on directions of the Supreme Court, the prosecution filed an application under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to recall her as a witness. The trial court allowed her recall but limited it only to cross-examination, refusing permission for further examination-in-chief.
Aggrieved by this restriction, the complainant approached the High Court.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that several incidents of alleged cruelty were not properly recorded earlier, and she should be allowed to depose fully to bring complete facts on record.
It was also contended that the Supreme Court had granted liberty to seek remedies under Section 311 CrPC, which should include the right to further examination-in-chief.
On the other hand, the respondent opposed the plea, arguing that the complainant had already testified twice and failed to appear for cross-examination earlier. Allowing fresh examination-in-chief now would unfairly prejudice the accused.
Read also:- Remarriage Not a Bar to Compensation: Telangana HC Upholds Widow’s Claim in Fatal Accident Case
The High Court carefully examined the procedural history and emphasized that the complainant’s testimony had already been recorded “at length” on two occasions.
The Court noted that the trial had reached the stage of cross-examination when the complainant stopped appearing, leading to her being dropped as a witness.
“The essence of Section 311 CrPC is to ensure a just decision, not to reopen concluded stages without compelling reasons,” the bench observed.
It further highlighted that allowing fresh examination-in-chief after more than a decade would effectively reopen the prosecution’s case and permit introduction of new allegations.
Addressing the argument about language barriers during earlier testimony, the Court found no convincing material to support the claim, noting that no objection had been raised at the relevant time.
Importantly, the Court clarified that the liberty granted by the Supreme Court to invoke Section 311 CrPC did not automatically entitle the petitioner to a fresh round of examination-in-chief.
Upholding the trial court’s order, the Delhi High Court ruled that recalling the complainant solely for cross-examination was a “balanced approach” that preserved both the prosecution’s case and the rights of the accused.
Finding no illegality in the trial court’s decision, the High Court dismissed the petition. It also clarified that its observations would not affect the merits of the ongoing trial.
Case Details
Case Title: Meenakshi Gautam vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 2325/2026 (with CRL.M.A. 9469/2026)
Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Decision Date: 15 April 2026
