1 2025:CGHC:27203 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1925 of 2025 Siddhe Sagar S/o Asadhu Sagar Aged About 32 Years R/o Kutasingha, P.S. Luisingha, District Balangir, Odisa Current Address Mahuwapara Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station City Kotwali Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Ms. Soniya Kuldeep, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 24/06/2025 1. The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed against the order dated 08.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raigarh in Session Trial No.44/2023 whereby the application under Section 311 of CrPC preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.06.26 17:18:22 +0530 2 2. The petitioner is facing criminal proceeding under Section 376 of IPC before the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raigarh in Session Trial No.44/2023. The victim/prosecutrix and 6 other witnesses have been examined before the trial Court. After completion of evidence of the prosecutrix, the petitioner/accused moved an application under Section 311 of CrPC for recalling the prosecutrix to cross-examine. Learned trial Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the prosecutrix, rejected the said application of the petitioner for calling the prosecutrix to cross-examine again under Section 311 CrPC, leading to the filing of this petition. 3. It is the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that some important questions have been left out and hence it is necessary to cross-examine the prosecutrix again. He submits that the order in question is not proper in the eyes of law, hence, it should be set aside. 4. The application under Section 311 CrPC filed by the petitioner/accused reflects that some flaws were found in the cross-examination done by the former advocate appointed on behalf of the appellant, that is why the said application was moved by the petitioner. The accused has been given sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the victim. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order warranting any interference by this Court. 5. Accordingly, the present CRMP is dismissed at the motion stage. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai