Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 142409 (ALL)

RAHUL RAWAT v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO. AND 3 OTHERS

A482/4909/2025 · 2025-06-12

Rajeev Singh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:35317 Court No. - 11 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4909 of 2025 Applicant :- Rahul Rawat Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Jauhari,Ambuj Kumar Bajpai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J. 1. Heard Shri Manish Jauhari, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Rao Narendra Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 23.04.2025 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No.521 of 2016 (State of UP Vs. Rahul Rawat) arising out of Case Crime No.58 of 2016 under Sections 376 IPC and 5/6 of POCSO Act, PS- Talkatora, District- Lucknow. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer in the most mechanical manner. Thereafter, trial was proceeded and the victim was cross-examined. He further submitted that certain questions could not be asked during the cross-examination of the victim, therefore, an application u/s 311 CrPC was moved for recall of victim/prosecutrix but the same was rejected by the trial court in the most mechanical manner vide order dated 23.04.2025 with the observation that vague application has been filed after six years from the date of cross-examination of the victim only with the intention to linger on the trial proceeding of case in question. The trial court further observed that no specific fact was shown in the application for recall of the witness. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant, while opposing the observation of trial court made in the order dated 23.04.2025, submitted that prior to lodging of FIR, an application was given by the applicant to the police station and when this fact came into the notice of the complainant, he filed present FIR. The aforesaid fact was not asked during the cross-examination which is the most relevant question in the present case. 5. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant also relied on the decision of this Court in Application U/S 482 No.12409 of 2022 (Madhusudan Shukla Vs. State of UP and Anr.) and submitted that merely on the basis of presumption that the application is filed with the intention to delay the trial proceeding, prayer for recall of witness/prosecutrix/victim should not be denied. In such circumstances, kind indulgence of this Court is necessary. 6. Learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer of applicant and submitted that it is mandatory on the part of the applicant to show specific facts which is to be asked from the witness, in case, she is called. But not even a single fact was mentioned in the alleged application. He further relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Shiv Charan Yadav reported in 2016 2 SCC 402 and submitted that as per the provisions of Section 33(3) of POCSO Act, Court is under obligation to ensure that the victim/prosecutrix is not called repeatedly to testify in the Court. Therefore, the present application is liable to be dismissed. 7. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of application, judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that the offence is related to the year of 2016, victim has already been examined on 19.06.2018 and her cross-examination was concluded about six years ago. Thereafter, the application for recall of victim/prosecutrix was moved merely on the basis of vague grounds. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial court. In such circumstance, the present application is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the present application is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 12.6.2025 V. Sinha Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench