Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36978 Court No. - 15 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5214 of 2025 Applicant :- Chandi Pal @ Rakesh Pal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Pal Singh,Anurag Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Sri Shiv Pal Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Hans Raj Verma, the learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 2. By means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (528 BNSS), the applicant has challenged the validity of an order dated 09.01.2025 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.44, Barabanki in C.T. No.1303 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.230 of 2022 under sections 354, 504, 506, 452, 376 IPC, Section 3/4 of POCSO Act & Section 3(1)Da, Dha & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act registered at Police Station- Safdarganj, District- Barabanki whereby an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for granting permission for cross-examination of the PW-1 has been rejected. 3. In the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed on 22.11.2024, the applicant had merely stated that examination- in-chief of PW-1 was recorded on 02.02.2023 but the applicant had not engaged any counsel by that time. For this reason, the opportunity of cross-examination of PW-1 was closed. Later on, the applicant had engaged an Advocate and it would be in the interest of justice that he be permitted to cross-examine PW-1. 4. The application does not mention the date on which the applicant had engaged an Advocate. 5. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 09.01.2025 in which it is recorded that the learned Special Public Prosecutor had informed the Court that the applicant had not engaged any Advocate on the date of examination-in-chief of PW-1 and he was given an option of being provided the services of an Advocate through legal aid but he declined this offer. 6. The trial Court has recorded in the order dated 09.01.2025 that the order-sheet of 02.02.2023 reveals that PW-1 was examined in presence of the applicant, who was offered the services of an amicus curie but the applicant declined to avail the same and it was thereafter that the opportunity of cross- examination of PW-1 was closed. The record reveals that the applicant was repetitively given an offer of availing the services of amicus curie and he declined this offer in writing. Thereafter, the applicant engaged a counsel on 16.03.2023 and his counsel cross-examined PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4. 7. The opportunity of cross-examination of PW-1 was closed on 02.02.2023, the applicant engaged a counsel on 16.03.2023 and the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for cross-examination of PW-1 was filed on 22.11.2024 i.e. after an inordinate delay. 8. The trial court rejected the application in view of the foregoing reasons. 9. Having gone through the order dated 09.01.2025, I am of the view that the order has been passed on the basis of cogent reasons mentioned in the preceeding paragraph of this order. 10. There appears to be no illegality in the order dated 09.01.2025 warranting any interference by this court in exercise of its inherent powers which are meant to prevent an abuse of the process of law or failure of justice, which is absent in the present case. 11. The application lacks merit and the same is dismissed. . (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Order Date :- 1.7.2025 -Amit K- Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench