Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:111016 Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 23239 of 2025 Applicant :- Kamlesh Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Gauri Shankar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri G.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jyoti Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State respondents and perused the record. 2. The instant application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed seeking quashing of impugned order dated 22.05.2025 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Siddhartha Nagar in Special Criminal Case No.789 of 2020 (State v. Nikhil Singh and others), arising out of Case Crime No.109 of 2020, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 313, 506 IPC and Sections 3(2)5, 3 (1) w(1) of S.C./S.T. Act and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, P.S. Chihiya, Distrit Siddharth Nagar and allow the application filed the applicant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. directing the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Siddharth Nagar to recall/summon the victim-P.W.1 for re- examination. 3. Facts in brief are that an FIR was lodged by the father of opposite party no.2 against the applicant and his son on 07.08.2020 with the allegation that the son of the applicant i.e. Nikhil Singh enticed away his minor daughter and committed rape and also terminated her pregnancy by giving contraceptives. In the said matter after investigation chargesheet was filed and the Court has taken cognizance on 12.10.2020. Thereafter, charges were framed and during trial the victim P.W.1 was examined and cross-examined on 16.02.2021 and 17.09.2021. Subsequently, the applicant has filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for re-examination of the victim/P.W.1, which has been rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 22.05.2025, the said order has been assailed by means of instant application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been rejected only on the ground that as per Chapter 8 Section 33 (5) of POCSO Act the Special Court shall not call the child repeatedly, while the victim is major, more than 18 years of age, hence, she can be called for re-examination. He further submits that Section 311 Cr.P.C. provides that the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his/her evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case but the trial Court has rejected his application without considering the said provision. 5. Per contra, learned AGA submits that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed with the malafide intention just to delay the trial. He further submits that the impugned order clearly shows that the victim was cross-examined on 16.02.2021 and as the cross-examination could not be completed on 16.02.2021, again she was cross-examined on 17.09.2021 in detail. Further submission is that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order. 6. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and perusing the impugned order it is evident that the victim was cross-examined on 16.02.2021 and 17.09.2021, it is after her statement the applicant has moved the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. with malafide intention just to delay the trial. The impugned order is perfectly justified and needs no interference. 7. The instant application is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 11.7.2025 S.P. Digitally signed by :- SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad