2025:CGHC:13628 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 1029 of 2025 Suryadev @ Raja Banjare S/o Ompraksh Banjare Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Bo- hardih, Thana Pachpedi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Pachpedi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Xyz Nill ... Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, Advocate For State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Panel lawyer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 21.03.2025 1. By way of this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.01.2025 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Additional Sessins Judge, First Fast Track Court (POCSO) district Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh in Special Criminal Case (POCSO) NO. 104/2024 wherein the learned court has rejected the application under Section 348 of the BNSS,2023 filed by the petitioner for recalling of the prosecution witness No. 1 which is prosecutrix herself on the ground of change in circumstances of the case, but he same has not been considered by the concerned court and rejected the same in erroneous manner. 2. Brief facts of the case are such at on 12.05.2024 the prosecutrix went before the Police station Pachpedi, district Bilaspur Chhattisgarh and made a complaint case against the present petitioner alleging that on 11.05.2024 at about 1:30 AM at night, when the prosecutrix was sleeping at her home, the petitioner along with other co-accused namely Ajit Dahariya knocked the door of the house of the prosecutrix and when she opened the door, the petitioner and the other co-accused forcefully took the prosecutrix on their motorcycle and took her to the Bilaspur Railway Station from where the petitioner and the prosecutrix both went to Hyderabad. They both resided there for about 15 to 20 days and the petitioner committed sexual intercourse with her. On 30.05.2024 the prosecutrix came to know that her father has lodged a missing report, upon which the petitioner and the prosecutrix came back to Bilaspur from Hyderabad, where the petitioner left her at the Railway station and thereafter she contacted her parents and narrated the story to them. Based upon the above allegations FIR was lodged against the present petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 363,366,376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 and 4 of the POCSO Act. Charge sheet has been filed. PW-01 mother of the victim and PW-02 father of the victim has been examined on 04.09.2024( Annexure A/2). On 10.08.2024 settlement deed was executed between the family members of the accused petitioner and the prosecutrix (Annexure A/3). The petitioner was also enlarged on bail from this Court vide order dated 18.11.2024 passed in MCRC No. 5980 of 2024 (Annexure A/4). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner most humbly submits that the learned court has not appreciated the fact there was a change in circumstances of the case and the recalling of the witness is important for fair examination. Moreover the learned court has not appreciated the fact that the relationship between the victim and the accused was just an affair and there was no sexual exploitation involved in the relationship. Even the mother and father of the victim have not supported the case of the prosecutrix. Hence he prays to set aside the impugned order dated 31.01.2025 in the interest of justice. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned order as well as other material available on record with utmost circumspection. 6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it is pertinent to mention here that it is an indisputable fact that the accused petitioner took victim to Hyderabad where they both resided for 15 to 20 days. Thereafter on knowing that her father had made a missing report, the accused left her at the Bilaspur Railway Station and the victim came back to her home by somehow contacting her father and thereafter, lodged the FIR against the accused petitioner stating that he has made physical relation with her in the rented house of Hyderabad. 7. After further perusal of the documents placed on record it is pertinent to mention that when the petitioner filed an application for grant of bail before this court vide order dated 18.11.2024, the victim did not objected the prayer and specially from Annexure A/3 it is clear that on 10.08.2024 the social meeting was conducted between the family members of the accused and the prosecutrix along with other villagers including the head of the village where the settlement deed was executed between the family members of the accused and prosecutrix. 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is crystal clear that the settlement deed has been executed by and between the parties and at this point of time recalling of the prosecutrix for examination without any cogent and reasonable ground seems to be unnecessary. Hence this court finds that rejection of the application filed by the petitioner before the learned court for recalling of the prosecutrix for examination is not illegal, perverse and contains no jurisdictional error. Therefore, the present case to set aside the impugned order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, First Fast Track Court (POCSO) District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh in Special Criminal case (POCSO) No. 104 of 2024 deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the instant criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge alfiza