2025:HHC:19456 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.549 of 2025 Decided on : 23.06.2025 Manoj Kumar @Manu …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary and Mr. Panku Choudhary, Advocates. For the respondent : Mr. H.S. Rawat and Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocates General. Virender Singh, Judge Petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), against the order 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:19456 dated 15.05.2025, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (Rape/POCSO), Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), in Criminal Misc. Petition No.1823/2025, filed in POCSO Trial No.7 of 2024, titled as ‘State of H.P. Vs. Manoj Kumar @Manu’. 2. By way of the order dated 15.05.2025, the learned trial Court has dismissed the application, filed under Section 348 of BNSS (Section 311 of CrPC), for summoning the child victim and her mother (PW-1 and PW-2, respectively), for further cross-examination. 3. The said application has been moved, according to the petitioner, on the ground that both the above two witnesses could not properly be cross-examined and certain material questions, which are essential for disposal of the case, could not be put to them. 4. As per the stand, taken in the petition, in the above-titled trial, PW-1 was examined on 12.12.2024 and PW-2 was examined on 17.01.2025 and by way of the application, the necessary permission has been sought by 3 2025:HHC:19456 the petitioner to re-examine the above two witnesses by recalling them. 5. The said application has been considered and dismissed by the learned trial Court, vide order dated 15.05.2025. 6. Aggrieved from the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 7. The copy of the application, moved before the learned trial Court, has also been annexed with the petition and nothing has been mentioned in the application about the reasons, for which, the petitioner has sought the indulgence of the learned trial Court to recall the above two witnesses. 8. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the print outs of the statements of the witnesses, recorded before the learned trial Court. 9. Statement of PW-1 (child victim) was recorded on 12.12.2024 and she has not supported the case of the prosecution and as such, on the request of learned Special Public Prosecutor, she has been declared hostile by the 4 2025:HHC:19456 learned trial Court and learned Special Public Prosecutor has cross-examined her. Thereafter, the learned counsel, appearing for the accused (petitioner), has also cross- examined her at length. 10. Similarly, PW-2 (mother of the child victim) was examined on 17.01.2025 and she has been cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused (petitioner). 11. Merely, the application has been filed, under Section 311 of CrPC (Section 348 of BNSS), does not mean that whatsoever application is moved, is to be allowed by the learned trial Court. When, the sufficient opportunities have been given to the learned counsel, representing the accused (petitioner), to cross-examine the witnesses, then, merely, with the change of counsel, no justifiable cause would arise, in favour of the petitioner, to move the application for recalling the witnesses for further cross- examination. 12. In para No.4 of the petition, a futile attempt has been made to show that the cross-examination of the witnesses i.e. PW-1 and PW-2 was done by the previous defence counsel and when, the cross-examination, done by 5 2025:HHC:19456 the earlier counsel, was perused by the new counsel, engaged by the petitioner, then, the application for re- examination of the witnesses has been moved. 13. Neither, in the application, which was moved before the learned trial Court, nor in the present petition, the material fact, about the questions, which have not been put to the witnesses, has been mentioned. In case, such vague application is allowed, then, there would be no end to the trial, which is against the antithesis to the sanctity of the trial. 14. In view of the discussions, made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that there is no substance in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 15. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. ( Virender Singh ) Judge June 23, 2025 (Gaurav Thakur)