Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42972 of 2024 Applicant :- Anil Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State opposite party 1. 2. Perused the record. 3. Applicant-Anil Kumar, who is a charge sheeted accused, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. with the following prayer:- "It, is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 27.11.2024 passed by Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO-I Gautam Buddha Nagar, Sessions Trial No. 153 of 2016 (State Versus Anil Kumar), Case Crime No. 68 of 2016 Under Section 201, 302, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act Police Station-Ecotech-III, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar and direct the Trial Court to summon the ALLEGED WITNESSES DHARMENDRA AND MANISH for evidence. It is further submitted that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 153 of 2016 (State Versus Anil Kumar), Case Crime No. 68 of 2016 Under Section 201, 302, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act Police Station-Ecotech-III, District-Gautam Buddh Nagar, pending before the Court of Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, POCSO-I Gautam Buddha Nagar, during the pendency of instant criminal revision before this Hon'ble Court. And/or to pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. " 4. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection by contending that the defence cannot be force the prosecution to get examined certain witnesses. It is the will of the prosecution to adduce or not to adduce any person as a prosecution witnesses including the prosecution witness nominated in the charge sheet. In case, applicant is of the view that the depositions of the witnesses mentioned in the application dated 27.11.2024 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. shall strengthen the defence version of the occurrence then certainly the said witnesses can be got adduced by the Court as defence witness. He, therefore, contends that application dated 27.11.2024 under Section 311 filed by applicant before Court below was misconceived and therefore, rightly rejected by court below. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in present application. 5. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objections 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 the record. In view of above, no good ground exists to entertain the present application. 7. As a result, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed. 8. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 24.2.2025 Imtiyaz Digitally signed by :- IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad