Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135522 Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18991 of 2025 Applicant :- Karishma Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Avnish Saxena,J. 1. Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Vijeta Singh, Advocate holding the brief on behalf of opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State. 2. Contention raised by Sri Srivastava, learned counsel is that the intrinsic right of the victim to get herself examined in the court has been jeopardized by the impugned order, whereby the prosecutrix has not being permitted to get her re-examined in the court. The application has been moved through prosecuting officer. The victim was under pressure due to which she has given certain incorrect statement before the court. 3. Ms. Vijeta Singh, Advocate appearing for the opposite party no.2 and submits that the application moved by the applicant before the court specifies five questions in the application, which are required to be asked by the defense. These questions though being answered by the applicant was not under duress but now the applicant wants to pressurize the opposite party no.2 and moved the present application. As such it is stated that the application has rightly been rejected by way of impugned order. 4. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by the parties. The applicant has lodged the FIR on 26.07.2023 at P.S. Kotwali Jaunpur, under Sections 376, 506, 323 IPC and Section 67-A of the I.T. Act against the opposite party no.2 with the contention that she initially married Rahul Yadav in the year 2016 but due to some dispute she left the matrimonial home and came in contact with opposite party no.2, who lured the prosecutrix-applicant of marriage and committed rape and also got the video clip of the prosecutrix-applicant. 5. After the investigation the charge sheet has been submitted and case is under trial. The examination in chief and cross examination of the prosecutrix-applicant has been recorded on 15.03.2024 which was continued for dates and concluded on 03.12.2024. On 14.02.2025, the application for re-examination has been moved stating therein that on 03.12.2024, when she was coming for the cross examination, she had conversation with some persons in Train, who had advised her not to go with the case as she and her child is on constant danger to life, due to which she has not given the statement in the cross examination out of her own free will and volition. 6. The learned trial court while considering the application has rejected the same on the pretext that on 07.01.2025, the statement of PW-2 has been recorded and thereafter on 14.02.2025, the application for re-examination has been moved by the applicant stating certain questions which are to be replied by the victim de- novo. The trial court has rejected the said application considering that it is not maintainable. 7. It is true that the statement of the applicant has already been recorded and she has been cross examined on many dates. The last cross examination has been carried out on 03.12.2024. After completion of her examination, the statement of PW-2 has also been recorded. The re-examination merely to state differently cannot be allowed. More over, the application dated 14.02.2025 merely states the threat perception dated 03.12.2024 without specifying that what type of threat she got and from whom. 8. The Court has rightly exercised the inherent power considering that the questions raised in the application were already put to the applicant. As such, the application moved under Section 528 B.N.S.S. is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Abhishek Sri. (Avnish Saxena,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad