Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:79623 Court No. - 70 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 16296 of 2025 Applicant :- Rajni Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Kanojia,Saushthav Guha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kanojia, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1. 2. Perused the record. 3. Applicant-Rajni, who is a victim, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 528 BNSS with the following prayer:- "It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present application u/s 528 of B.N.S.S. and quash the impugned order dated 12.03.2025 passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act) Court No.-3, Meerut, in POCSO Case No. 119/2018, State vs. Rakesh, under Section 376, 377 and 506 IPC, in Case Crime No. 273/2018, Police Station- Brahmapuri, District-Mecrut, whereby the application bearing paper no.43-Kha moved u/s 311 Cr.P.C. for recall of witness P. W.1- Rajni has been dismissed/ rejected. It is also prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the further proceedings of POCSO Case No. 119/2018, State vs. Rakesh, under Section 376, 377 and 506 IPC, Police Station- Brahmapuri, District- Meerut, pending before the Court of Ld. Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act) Court No.-3, Meerut, during the pendency of the present application before this Hon'ble Court, and/or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case." 4. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. submits that order impugned in present application is perfectly just and legal and therefore not liable to be interfered with by this Court. Applicant is victim in the Sessions Trial pending before Court below. The applicant victim had deposed before Court below as PW-1 but however, in her statement-in-chief she has herself not disclosed the material facts in respect of the occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings. He, therefore, submits that in view of above, an application dated 12.03.2025 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by victim before Court below was wholly misconceived. He has then referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in Raja Ram Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and Another (2013) 14 SCC 461, wherein, the Apex Court has laid down the parameters which are required to be examined while judging the bona fide of an applicant in filing an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. In the light of above, the learned A.G.A. submits that when bona fide of applicant in filing aforementioned application is examined in the light of facts on record, it is apparent that the depositions of the prosecution witnesses have already been recorded and the trial is at the stage of hearing. The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was engineered on account of an ulterior motive. More particularly, after the new counsel was engaged by applicant. In view of above, no illegality or infirmity can be attached to the order impugned passed by Court below. As such, the present application is liable to be rejected. 5. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objection raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application are not only borne out from the record but furthermore the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record. In view of above, no good ground exists to entertain the present application. 7. As a result, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed. 8. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 13.5.2025 Imtiyaz Digitally signed by :- IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad