HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9526 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Heard Sri Rama Raman Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 3.9.2025, passed by Additional Session Judge, FTC-II, Sultanpur, whereby his application 48-kha under Section 348 B.N.S.S., 2023, has been rejected. The Special Session Trial Case No.56 of 2014 titled State vs. Mazid Khan and others, arising out of Case Crime No.73 of 2014 under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 and 120-B IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012, is pending. 3. The petitioners has filed an application under Section 348 BNSS before the trial court on 24.8.2025. He has submitted in the said application that the statement of the victim, examination-in-chief and cross-examination were in continuation and her last statement was recorded on 2.6.2016. He specifically mentioned in paragraph-2 that the cross-examination of the victim/PW1 was not completed on 2.6.2016. He further mentioned that the cross-examination of her was not completed and no opportunity for cross-examination is provided to him, therefore, he would suffer irreparable loss. 4. The victim has filed her objection and stated that it is true that his Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rama Raman Mishra, Rajeev Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mazid And 2 Others .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) cross-examination was continued on 2.6.2016. 5. Learned AGA has opposed the submission and submitted that in the impugned order at page-2, the learned trial court has specifically mentioned that the cross-examination with the victim is already completed. Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. The learned trial court has passed a detailed order dated 3.9.2025 in a session trial, which is pending since 2014. The trial court has specifically mentioned that the statement of PW1/victim, examination-in-chief was recorded on 8.6.2015 and thereafter the accused persons had cross- examined the victim/PW1 on 19.2.2016, 3.5.2016 and 2.6.2016 and her cross-examination had been completed on 2.6.2016. The examination-in- chief and cross-examination were concluded in 16 pages. Hence, the accused person had got the proper and ample opportunities of cross- examination. 7. The learned trial court further mentioned in the order that after the completion of the cross-examination and statement of PW1/victim on 2.6.2016, his predecessor had recorded the statement and cross- examination of PW2 on 27.6.2022, statement and cross-examination of PW3 on 19.9.2022, statement and cross-examination of PW4 on 22.2.2023, statement and cross-examination of PW5 on 28.5.2024 and 10.7.2024, examination-in-chief and cross-examination of PW6 was recorded on 16.7.2025 and the statement, examination-in-chief and cross- examination of PW7 were recorded on 24.7.2025. Thereafter, the file is fixed for statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 8. The learned trial court further mentioned that accused person previously also filed an application 76-kha for re-examination of PW1/victim, which was already dismissed on 14.5.2025 on merits. 9. In view thereof, it is categorically clear that the petitioners have got the proper and ample opportunity of hearing of cross-examination. The application, moved by the petitioners before the learned trial court that opportunity of cross-examination was not provided, is misconceived. There is neither any illegality nor irregularity in the impugned order. A482 No. 9526 of 2025 2 10. This application is liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed, accordingly. November 14, 2025 LNTripathi A482 No. 9526 of 2025 3 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- LALIT TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench