CRM-M-71835 IN THE 126 Karnail Singh a State of Punjab CORAM : HON Present: Ms Mr. Mr. AMARJOT BH 1. Pet Section 528 of impugned order Sessions Judge, the petitioner un PW-1 for the pu said order is unj to be set aside. 2. Lea FIR No.0003 da 11, 12 of POCS Bhagat Singh N statement of the 35-2025 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH CR Dat h alias Bittu V/S jab and Anr. ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AMARJ s. Kamaljeet Kaur, Advocate for r. Vipul Babuta, Advocate for pet r. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab **** BHATTI J. (ORAL) etitioner – Karnail Singh alias of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanh er dated 18.11.2025 (Annexure P- e, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar v under Section 348 of BNSS to rec purpose of cross-examination has unjust, illegal, untenable in the eye earned counsel for petitioner argu dated 04.01.2025 under Section 7 CSO Act, registered at Police St Nagar, Punjab (Annexure P-2). the victim was recorded as PW-1 -1- AB AND HARYANA AT RH CRM-M-71835-2025 Date of decision : 17.02.2026 ...... Petitioner ..... Respondent RJOT BHATTI petitioner. jab. s Bittu filed this petition under anhita, 2023 seeking quashing of -1) passed by learned Additional ar vide which application filed by ecall and re-examine the victim as as been wrongly declined and the eyes of law and the same is liable rgued that petitioner is accused in 75, 78 of BNS 2023 and Section Station, Rahon, District Shaheed . During the pendency of trial, 1. The copy of her statement is er ents er of al by as he le in on ed al, is SUNIL DEVI 2026.02.20 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-71835 (Annexure P-6) facts. As a resul 3) to recall the complainant is position, the ap Shaheed Bhagat P-1). Therefore, dated 18.11.202 granted one opp 3. Lea the stand that th counsel for accu the witness for f the application w 4. I ha carefully. The pr of age. Her sta learned counsel application (Ann As per the cont examination of witness due to examination. Th nature. No spec witness for furt 35-2025 ). The witnesses could not be cro sult, application was filed under Se he witness for further cross-exam (Annexure P-4). Without con application is declined by learn gat Singh Nagar vide impugned ord re, present petition may be allowed 025 may kindly be set aside and pportunity to cross-examine the wi earned counsel representing State t the prosecutrix as PW-1 was cr ccused. The petitioner has failed to r further cross-examination. By ap n was rightly declined. have considered the arguments an prosecutrix is examined as PW-1, statement was recorded and she el for the accused at length. Therea nnexure P-3) to recall the witnes ontents of application, it is menti of the witness, few necessary que to oversight. Therefore, she i The aforesaid assertion in the app pecific reason has come on reco urther cross-examination. Perusal -2- ross-examined on certain material Section 311 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P- amination. The reply filed by the considering the aforesaid factual rned Additional Sessions Judge, order dated 18.11.2025 (Annexure ed. The aforesaid impugned order nd the petitioner/accused may be witness. ate opposed the petition by taking cross-examined at length by the to give any justification to recall appreciating the factual position, and have gone through the record 1, who is a young girl of 13 years he was duly cross-examined by reafter the petitioner/accused filed ess for further cross-examination. ntioned that at the time of cross- questions could not be put to the is required for further cross- pplication is general and vague in cord which require recall of the sal of statement of minor victim ial - he al ge, re er be ng he all , rd ars by ed n. - he - in he im SUNIL DEVI 2026.02.20 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-71835 recorded as PW basis of aforesa further cross-exa In t trial court by (Annexure P-1) the petitioner is 5. Pen accordingly as w 17.02.2026. Sunil Devi 35-2025 W-1 indicates that she was cross-e esaid vague application, the witn examination. n the light of this, the application y passing well-reasoned impug 1) and the same is accordingly up is accordingly declined. ending miscellaneous application s well. (AM Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No -3- examined at length. Now, on the itness cannot be recalled to face n was rightly declined by learned pugned order dated 18.11.2025 upheld. The petition preferred by ion(s), if any, stand disposed of (AMARJOT BHATTI ) JUDGE he ce ed 25 by of SUNIL DEVI 2026.02.20 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document