Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:109249 Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 20523 of 2025 Applicant :- Ashok Mall Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Yogesh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1 and perused the record. 2. The present application has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing order dated 29.04.2025 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act, Kasganj in Sessions Case No.948 of 2024 (State vs. Ashok Mall) arising out of Case Crime no.429 of 2023, under Section 376AB IPC and Section 5M/6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)v of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Kasganj, District-Kasganj, pending before the court of Special Judge/POCSO Act, Kasganj. 3. An FIR was lodged on 23.06.2023 by O.P. no.2 against the present applicant for the offence 376AB IPC and Section 5M/6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)v of SC/ST Act wherein it is alleged that the applicant has committed rape with the minor daughter of informant. After completion of investigation and recording statements of victim and informant and also after medical examination of the victim, chargesheet was filed on 01.07.2023 and thereafter cognizance was taken by the court below. Thereafter, the trial commenced and prosecution witnesses were examined and cross-examined. However, PW-1 (victim) was cross-examined by Amicus Curiae appointed by the court below as counsel for the applicant was not present on that day in the court, hence, an application was preferred on behalf of the applicant seeking permission to cross-examine PW-1 again, which has been rejected by order dated 29.04.2025, which has been assailed by means of instant application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the victim, PW- 1 was examined by Amicus Curiae appointed by the court below in absence of counsel for the applicant, due to which application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicant and the same has been illegally rejected by the court below. He next submitted that the applicant is an old person who has been falsely implicated in the instant case due to ulterior motive and village party bandi. He also submitted that the applicant is married person having two children and the prosecution story is false and concocted one. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the application and contended that entire exercise of filing application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been done by the applicant just to prolong the trial of the case. He further submitted that the Court below has rightly passed the impugned order and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order. 6. I see no illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court and I am of the view that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicant just to prolong the trial of the case. However, the chance to cross-examine the witness was not availed by the applicant, then the court below had no option but to appoint Amicus Curiae to cross-examine the witness. Thereafter, when the cross-examination was over, the applicant has preferred an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. just with a view to prolong the trial, which is clearly abuse of process of law in my opinion. I find no merit in the instant application. 7. The instant application is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 Manish Himwan Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad