IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 40 of 2025 ------ Xxxx, aged about xx years, D/o xxxx, R/o village- xxxx, PO:xxxx, PS:xxxx, District-xxxx .... …. Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Musaffar Ansari, S/o not known to the petitioner, R/o village- Bagridih, PO & Ps: Domchanch, District-Koderma. .... .... ....Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K.Sahani, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.D.Agrawal, Spl.P.P ------ Order No.04/Dated: 13.02.2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for quashing the order dated 29.8.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Koderma in Sessions Trial No. 66 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the application under section 311 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the informant -cum- victim in the above captioned case. The petitioner was already examined as a witness (PW-1) after framing of charge and also other two witnesses have been examined as PW-1 and PW-2. The petitioner has filed an application dated 21.6.2024 for recalling herself as a witness for the ends of justice with submission that due to fear she was not in normal state of mind at the time of adducing evidence and with a view to save an innocent person from liability, she wants to be recalled and further examine, which has been rejected by the learned trial court, hence, the order dated 29.8.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Koderma in Sessions Trial No. 66 of 2022 liable to be set-aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned APP has submitted that the learned trial court has recorded sound reasons that the witness cannot be recalled to fill up a lacunae in the case providing unfair advantage to the accused. The victim with an ulterior motive has filed this application which has rightly been rejected. 5. I have gone through the impugned order and the above submissions made on behalf of respective parties, it is apparent that the petitioner victim has already been examined, cross-examined and discharged. The very ground for her recalling for further examination, as stated above, is not tenable under law which has an effect of destruction of prosecution case. 6. Therefore, I do not find fit to admit this Cr.M.P. for hearing on merits, hence, it is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. KNR/ (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)