Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36856 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24140 of 2024 Applicant :- Munna @ Tabarak Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, and perused the record. 2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred with a prayer to quash the order dated 23.05.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Maharajganj, under Section 311 Cr.P.C., in Sessions Trial No. 76 of 2016, titled State v. Munna @ Tabarak, and to direct the trial court to summon the victim (PW-1) for further examination. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Madhusudan Shukla v. State of U.P. and another, passed in Application U/S 482 No.12409 of 2022, wherein it was held that delay in trial or an attempt by the applicant to delay the trial and the subsequent closing of evidence cannot be the sole ground for dismissal of an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. It was observed that the primary objective of the court should be to arrive at the truth, which can only be achieved by granting a fair opportunity to examine or cross-examine the witness. In the present case, it is contended that the opportunity to re-examine the victim has not been provided, thereby resulting in a miscarriage of justice, as the applicant has been deprived of a fair chance to prove his innocence. 4. On a careful perusal of the impugned order, it is revealed that the victim (PW-1) was subjected to cross-examination on approximately 23 occasions, thereby indicating that the applicant had been afforded sufficient opportunity to prove his innocence through cross-examination. 5. It is a settled principle of law that based on the finding that the trial is at the final stage, the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be rejected. However, in the present case, the record clearly demonstrates that the victim was cross-examined on multiple dates, and 23 times the victim visited the trial court for cross- examination. Therefore, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to the applicant. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the adequate opportunity already granted to the applicant for cross-examination of the victim, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court. 7. Accordingly, the application, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Anil K. Sharma Justice Vinod Diwakar Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad