Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32041 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1137 of 2025 Applicant :- Ramashish Alias Ashish Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar,Mohit Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Heard Mr. Mohit Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1. 2. Perused the record. 3. At the very outset, learned AGA submits that notice of this application has been served upon first informant opposite party-2 on 15.01.2025, however, in spite of service of notice neither any counter affidavit has been filed by first informant opposite party-2 nor anyone has put in appearance on his behalf to oppose this application even in revised call. 4. (Charge sheeted accused) - Applicant- Ramashish Alias Ashish has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 07.12.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Court No.1/Special Judge POCSO Act, whereby, the application dated 31.07.2024, under Section 311 Cr.P.C. (paper no.29 Kha) filed by accused applicant has been rejected. 5. On the matter being taken up, the learned AGA raised a preliminary objection by contending that when the veracity of the application dated 31.07.2024, under Section 311 Cr.P.C. (paper no.29 Kha) filed by accused applicant before court below is examined in the light of parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Raja Ram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar and another (2013) 14 SCC 461, it is apparent that no bona fide of the applicant in filing the aforesaid is apparent from the same. 6. In view of the above, no illegality can be said to have been committed by court below in rejecting the aforementioned application. Furthermore, the proposed questions which are sought to be put to the doctor who had conducted the medical examination of the prosecutrix relate to a negative facts. It is well settled rule of evidence that it is only positive fact which is required to be proved. As such, no infirmity can be attached to the impugned order. Consequently, the present application is liable to be dismissed. 7. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objections raised by the learned AGA in opposition to this application are clearly borne out from the record and furthermore, the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record. In view of the above, no good ground exist to entertain present application. 9. As a result, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed. 10. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 S.A. Digitally signed by :- SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad