Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:7470 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39746 of 2024 Applicant :- Jitendra Alias Jeetu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Gagan Pratap Singh,Rohit Kumar Kushwaha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Heard Mr. Gagan Pratap Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. 2. Perused the record. 3. By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., applicant has challenged the order dated 23.10.2024, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Additional Special Judge (POCSO Act) Court No. 2, Mathura in Session Trial No. 1280 of 2022 (State Vs.Jitendra W Jeetu), arising out of Case Crime No. 898 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 (POCSO) Act, 2012, Police Station Highway, District Mathura, whereby the application dated 15.10.2024 under Section 311 Cr. P. C. filed by applicant before Court below to recall the prosecutrix i.e. P.W. 2 has been rejected by Court below. 4. On the matter being taken up, the learned A.G.A. submits that notice of present application has been served upon first informant opposite party 2 on 13.11.2024. However, in spite of service of notice, neither any counter affidavit has been filed by first informant opposite party 2 nor any one has put in appearance on his behalf to oppose this application even in revised call. 5. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. has raised an objection by submitting that from perusal of the application dated 15.10.2024, under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by accused applicant before Court below, it is apparent that neither the questions proposed to be put to the prosecutrix nor the relevancy of the said questions have been mentioned in the application. It is also submitted by the learned A.G.A. that once the proposed questions have itself not been mentioned in the application, relevancy of the same could not have been detailed in the application. As such, the bona-fide of applicant in filing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be examined by this Court in the light of parameters laid down by Apex Court in Raja Ram Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and Another (2013) 14 SCC 461. He, therefore, submits that in view of above, no illegality has been committed by Court below in rejecting the aforementioned application. 6. Learned A.G.A. has next invited attention of Court to the impugned order passed by Court below and on basis thereof, he submits that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling the prosecutrix, was wholly malicious. The said application was engineered only to delay the trial. Reference was then made to the provisions contained in Section 35(5) of POCSO Act, which prohibits the Court from recalling the prosecutrix repeatedly. Court below has observed that frequently counsel has been changed by the accused-applicant. Furthermore, direction has been issued by this Court to Court below to conclude the trial within a period of 6 months. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. submits that no illegality has been committed by Court below in passing the order impugned. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in present application. 7. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objection raised by the learned A.G.A., in opposition to this application are not only borne out from the record but furthermore, the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to record. As such, no good ground exists to entertain the present application. 9. In view of above, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed. 10. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 HSM Digitally signed by :- HARI SHANKER MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad