Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 146548 (ALL)

MOHD. RIYAZ v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO. AND 3 OTHERS

A482/5051/2025 · 2025-06-24

Subhash Chandra Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36238 Court No. - 11 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5051 of 2025 Applicant :- Mohd. Riyaz Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with prayer to quash the order dated 16.05.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.44, Barabanki in Case Crime No.278/2020, (State vs. Mohd. Riyaz) under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. & 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Dewa, District Barabanki by which the court concerned has rejected the applicatio for recall of prosecution witness no.2 i.e. PW-2 u/s 311 Cr.P.C. and allow the applicant to give an opportunity to cross examine the prosecution witness no.2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in this case PW-2 is victim and has already been examined and cross- examined before the learned trial court even other witnesses have also been examined. After conclusion of prosecution evidence the statement of accused person u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and then case was fixed for defence evidence. During the preparation of the case some facts came into the knowledge of the learned counsel on which no cross-examination was made, therefore, the application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. was filed before the learned trial court mentioning some specific questions on which her cross-examination was to be done, even though that application was rejected by the learned trial court by order dated 16.05.2025 erroneously and illegally, therefore, request to set it aside and allow this application for further cross- examination of PW-2 relating to some specific questions as mentioned in the said application. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case PW-2 is victim and has already been examined before the learned trial court and exhaustive cross-examination was made by the learned counsel for the defence. Thereafter, PW-3, 4 & 5 were also examined and after conclusion of prosecution evidence statements of accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and case was fixed for defence evidence. There was full opportunity of asking questions relating to the case for the defence and now he has an opportunity of producing the papers and material in defence before the learned trial court. The learned trial court after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case passed the order dated 16.05.2025 on an application paper no.42A u/s 311 Cr.P.C. There is no illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and the order dated 16.05.2025, it appears that PW-2 is victim and after her examination-in-chief she was subjected to exhaustive cross- examination. Thereafter, the statements of PW-3, 4 & 5 were also recorded and after recording the statements of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. the case was fixed for defence evidence. The applicant did not adduce the evidence in defence but moved the present application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. mentioning several questions regarding which he seeks further cross- examination with the victim whereas he had full opportunity to ask questions with the victim as mentioned in the application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. Now he has opportunity to produce the evidence in his favour in defence. There appears no ground to re-summon for further cross-examination of PW-2/victim and the order passed by learned trial court dated 16.05.2025 cannot be said to be erroneous and illegal, therefore, it does not warrant any interference by this Court but this application being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is, hereby, dismissed. Order Date :- 24.6.2025 Ashok Gupta Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench