Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30061 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1737 of 2025 Applicant :- Kishan Pal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- R.P. Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri R.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Moti Lal, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This Court on 31.01.2025 directed the learned A.G.A. to serve a notice upon O.P. No.2. An affidavit of compliance dated 17.02.2025 has been filed, wherein in para-3, it has been asserted that the service of notice has been made on Sunil, who is real brother of O.P. No.2. 3. Till the dictation of order, nobody is present on behalf of O.P. No.2. 4. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure preferred by the applicant for quashing order dated 2-4- 2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, (POCSO Act)- Sambhal at Chandausi in Sessions Trial No. 236/2019 State versus Kishan Pal, and direct the learned trial court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (POCSO Act), Sambhal at Chandausi to summon P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 6 for cross examination, 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the proceeding purported to be under Section 363, 366 IPC read with Section 3(2) (v) of SC/ST Act in Case No.141 of 2019, Special Sessions Trial No.236 of 2019, an application stood preferred under Section 311 of CrPC on 09.11.2023 for giving an opportunity to cross-examine PW-3, Kiran, victim's mother, PW-4 Dr. Sarika Agarwal, PW-6 C.O. Ashok, however, the same was dismissed for non-prosecution on 30.11.2023. Thereafter another application stood preferred on 04.03.2024 while invoking the provisions contained under Section 311 CrPC to summon material witnesses and examine the persons present. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the said application has been rejected by the court below on 02.04.2024. Assailing the said order, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a poor person and due to the fault of the counsel, who was prosecuting the trial, he did not examine the three witnesses. He further submits that an opportunity be accorded to cross-examine them. 4. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that it is not a matter of right on mere asking that provisions of Section 311 be invoked. There has to be a necessary ingredient so as to show that despite due diligence, the same was not done. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant, I am of the opinion that the application seeking recall of the witnesses cannot be accepted, particularly, when there happens to be no reason and the only reason is that it was a lawyer's mistake. Further I find from the order itself that there was direction of the High Court for expeditious disposal of the case. 5. No interference is required by the Court. 6. Accordingly, the application stands consigned to record. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad