HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6295 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State. 3. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 19.09.2024 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi by which the application moved by the revisionist under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. By the said application, the revisionist prayed for pre- summoning of P.W.-1 for re-examination, whose testimony was recorded on 07.11.2020 in the on going trial. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that as far as the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is concerned, the victim has given a different version and while deposing before the Court, the P.W.-1 i.e victim was declared as hostile and, therefore, deposed differently. It is further submitted that in the event P.W.-1 victim is not recalled for re- examination, appropriate justice may not be done to her and may lead to different findings by the learned trial court. 5. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the statement of P.W.-1 i.e. victim was recorded on 07.11.2020 and was completed the same day. It is further submitted that it is not necessary, if a statement has been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the same has to be repeated verbatim or otherwise, during the course of the trial. It is expected and left upon to any witness to speak truth in respect of Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Amit Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Kailash Prasad Pandey Ram Murat Chauhan .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) the incident that has taken place under those circumstances and if the victim has resiled from her earlier statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the same cannot be a ground for re-summoning the victim for the purpose of re- examination. It is further submitted that the revisionist also submitted an application dated 29.11.2021 for recalling the same witness i.e. P.W.-1 and after hearing the said application, the learned trial court dismissed the same, vide order dated 02.04.2022. It is further submitted that the moving repeated applications leads nowhere and witnesses is liable to be harassed. Learned counsel for opposite parties prayed that the present revision is liable to be dismissed. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and learned AGA for the State, it appears that the revisionist intends to recall the witness P.W.-1 i.e. victim of the case in a manner that in all probability, what has been stated under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the same contents to be repeated on re- examination. Moreover, the revisionist has also moved an application for recalling the said witness on 29.11.2021 and the said application was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 02.04.2022 and again moved the application for recalling the witness, the order which is under challenge in this revision. From the perusal of the material on record, it appears that the application moved by the revisionist is not only false and frivolous, but also to delay the trial for no reasons and, therefore, the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 19.09.2024 appears to be in accordance with law. By filing the applications, one thereafter another, the revisionist has consumed the precious time of the court at two stages. 7. The present revision is devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed with cost of Rs.1000/-. 8. The cost be deposited before the High Court Legal Service Committee within one month from today. September 25, 2025 Sanjeet CRLR No. 6295 of 2024 2 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANJEET KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SANJEET KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad