ORDER : 1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 against the impugned order dated 23.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 60/2023 whereby, the learned Trial Court has dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. 1973. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the counsel engaged to defiend the charges was not engaged by the petitioner, but by his father. Even the counsel engaged has not cross-examined the victim, but his junior, who could not posed important questions relevant in the facts of the case to victim, about her age and relationship between petitioner and victim. Therefore, the petitioner has changed the counsel and have engaged another counsel through District Legal Services Authority. He also contended that as the specific question could not be put to the victim, application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 was filed, however, the said application was erroneously rejected by the learned Trial Court. He submits that there are chances to settle the dispute between the parties and therefore also, re-examination of victim is necessary. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent/State vehemently opposes the submission made by counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the learned Trial Court has dismissed the application with a well reasoned order. He also pointed out that from perusal of the order passed by the learned Trial Court, it is apparent that the questions for which, re-examination is sought has already been put to the victim during her cross-examination. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 5. Perusal of the application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 would show that the grounds which is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been pleaded. However, the pleading is only that the specific question with regard to age and relationship has not been put on the victim. Copy of the deposition of the victim is placed on record as Annexure P/3. However, the pleading is only that the specific question with regard to age and relationship has not been put on the victim. Copy of the deposition of the victim is placed on record as Annexure P/3. Perusal of the same would show that in Para 8 & 9, specific question has been posed on the victim with regard to her age and in para 11 to 14, questions regarding relationship between the victim and the petitioner has also been put upon her. 6. From the aforementioned facts of the case and perusal of the deposition of the victim, it is apparent that the victim has been posed multiple questions on both the grounds which is subject matter of application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.. It is well settled law that the victim in cases of sexual offences committed against her, is not to harass her by calling again and again for re-examination in the garb that some questions has not been put to her during her examination/cross-examination. The discretion as provided under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to Courts are to be exercised after taking into consideration facts and circumstances of each case. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Swapan Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2019) 14 SCC 328 has observed thus: “ 10. The first part of this section which is permissive gives purely discretionary authority to the criminal court and enables it at any stage of inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code to act in one of the three ways, namely, (i) to summon any person as a witness; or (ii) to examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness; or (iii) to recall and re-examine any person already examined. The second part, which is mandatory, imposes an obligation on the court (i) to summon and examine or (ii) to recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. 11. It is well settled that the power conferred under Section 311 should be invoked by the court only to meet the ends of justice. The power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and it should be exercised with great caution and circumspection. 11. It is well settled that the power conferred under Section 311 should be invoked by the court only to meet the ends of justice. The power is to be exercised only for strong and valid reasons and it should be exercised with great caution and circumspection. The court has vide power under this section to even recall witnesses for re-examination or further examination, necessary in the interest of justice, but the same has to be exercised after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case. The power under this provision shall not be exercised if the court is of the view that the application has been filed as an abuse of the process of law.” 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Shiv Kumar Yadav & Anr. (2016) 2 SCC 402 has observed thus: “ 10. It can hardly be gainsaid that fair trial is a part of guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Its content has primarily to be determined from the statutory provisions for conduct of trial, though in some matters where statutory provisions may be silent, the court may evolve a principle of law to meet a situation which has not been provided for. It is also true that principle of fair trial has to be kept in mind for interpreting the statutory provisions. 11. It is further well settled that fairness of trial has to be seen not only from the point of view of the accused, but also from the point of view of the victim and the society. In the name of fair trial, the system cannot be held to ransom. The accused is entitled to be represented by a counsel of his choice, to be provided all relevant documents, to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and to lead evidence in his defence. The object of provision for recall is to reserve the power with the court to prevent any injustice in the conduct of the trial at any stage. The power available with the court to prevent injustice has to be exercised only if the court, for valid reasons, feels that injustice is caused to a party. Such a finding, with reasons, must be specifically recorded by the court before the power is exercised. It is not possible to lay down precise situations when such power can be exercised. The power available with the court to prevent injustice has to be exercised only if the court, for valid reasons, feels that injustice is caused to a party. Such a finding, with reasons, must be specifically recorded by the court before the power is exercised. It is not possible to lay down precise situations when such power can be exercised. The legislature in its wisdom has left the power undefined. Thus, the scope of the power has to be considered from case to case. The guidance for the purpose is available in several decisions relied upon by the parties. It will be sufficient to refer to only some of the decisions for the principles laid down which are relevant for this case. 15. The above observations cannot be read as laying down any inflexible rule to routinely permit a recall on the ground that cross-examination was not proper for reasons attributable to a counsel. While advancement of justice remains the prime object of law, it cannot be understood that recall can be allowed for the asking or reasons related to mere convenience. It has normally to be presumed that the counsel conducting a case is competent particularly when a counsel is appointed by choice of a litigant. Taken to its logical end, the principle that a retrial must follow on every change of a counsel, can have serious consequences on conduct of trials and the criminal justice system. The witnesses cannot be expected to face the hardship of appearing in court repeatedly, particularly in sensitive cases such as the present one. It can result in undue hardship for the victims, especially so, of heinous crimes, if they are required to repeatedly appear in court to face cross-examination.” 9. In view of the aforementioned facts of the case and considering the questions which have been posed upon the victim during cross- examination before the Trial Court, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court. 10. Accordingly, the petition being sans merit is liable to be and accordingly, dismissed Certified copy as per rules.