HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5251 of 2026 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Sri Raghuvansh Chandra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ankit Tiwari, learned counsel for the private opposite party no. 2 and Sri Pushapraj Singh, learned brief holder for the State. 3. The instant application u/s 528 BNSS has been filed to quash the order dated 13.11.2025 passed in Case No. 2142 of 2022 (State Vs. Preet) arising out of Case Crime No. 0413 of 2022 under Section 363, 376 of IPC & Section 3/4 (2) POCSO Act, Police Station- Partapur, District- Meerut, whereby the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed which has been filed for grant an opportunity to cross- examination to P.W.2 /Victim pending in the Court of Special Judge POCSO Act, Meerut. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order has been passed without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the settled position of law. It is further submitted that the application in question has been filed to grant an opportunity to cross-examine PW.2/Victim, along with the reasons upon which, learned counsel for applicant was not cross-examined earlier. 5. Learned AGA has not denied the factual of matrix of the case. 6. Learned counsel for the private opposite party no. 2 vehemently Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Raghuvansh Chandra, Ram Jee Saxena, Rohit Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ankit Tiwari, G.A. Preet .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) opposed the prayer and submitted that several opportunities has been granted to applicant to cross- examine to PW-2 by the Trial Court. The Trial Court dismissed the application in question after observing that the examination-in-chief of PW-2 was recorded on 05.07.2024 and thereafter, the matter remained pending for about one year and three months for her cross-examination. On 20.08.2025, an adjournment application was moved, which was allowed subject to payment of costs. However, on 09.09.2025, the cross-examination of PW-2 was not conducted, and the opportunity to cross-examine her was closed. No reason has been assigned by the applicant for the delay in conducting the cross- examination. It was further observed that the application in question was dismissed by the Trial Court having regard to the provisions of Sections 33(5) and 35(1) of the POCSO Act. 7. In Dr. Rajesh Talwar and another Vs. C.B.I. and another, (2014) 1 SCC 628, the Supreme Court considered the issue of fair trial observing in Para 10, which is as under:- "10. This Court in Selvi J. Jayalalithaa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (Writ Petition (Crl.) No.154 of 2013) decided on 30.9.2013, after referring to its earlier judgments in Triveniben Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1989 SC 1335; Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and others, AIR 2006 SC 1367; Capt. Amarinder Singh Vs. Prakash Singh Badal & Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 260; Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2012 SC 750; and Natasha Singh Vs. CBI (State), (2013) 5 SCC 741, dealt with the issue of fair trial observing: Fair trial is the main object of criminal procedure and such fairness should not be hampered or threatened in any manner. Fair trial entails the interests of the accused, the victim and of the society. Thus, fair trial must be accorded to every accused in the spirit of right to life and personal liberty and the accused must get a free and fair, just and reasonable trial on the charge imputed to ask in a criminal case. Any breach or violation of public rights and duties adversely affects the community as a NA528 No. 5251 of 2026 2 whole and it becomes harmful to the society in general. In all circumstances, the courts have a duty to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice and such duty is to vindicate and uphold the 'majesty of the law' and the courts cannot turn a blind eye to vexatious or oppressive conduct that occurs in relation to criminal proceedings. Denial of a fair trial is as much injustice to the accused as is to the victim and the society. It necessarily requires a trial before an impartial judge, a fair prosecutor and an atmosphere of judicial calm. Since the object of the trial is to mete out justice and to convict the guilty and protect the innocent, the trial should be a search for the truth and not a bout over technicalities and must be conducted under such rules as will protect the innocent and punish the guilty. Justice should not only be done but should be seem to have been done. Therefore, free and fair trial is a sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. Right to get a fair trial is not only a basic fundamental right but a human right also. Therefore, any hindrance in a fair trial could be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. xx xx xx xx Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides for the right to a fair trial what is enshrined in Article 21 of our Constitution. Therefore, fair trial is the heart of criminal jurisprudence and, in a way, an important facet of a democratic polity and is governed by rule of law. Denial of fair trial is crucifixion of human rights." 8. In the case of Natasha Singh Vs. C.B.I. (State), (2013) 5 SCC 741, the Supreme Court dealt with the scope of discretionary power of Section 311, Cr.P.C. after referring the judgment of P. Sanjeeva Rao Vs. State of A.P., AIR 2012 SC 2242, which is as under:- "Grant of fairest opportunity to the accused to prove his innocence was the object of every fair trial, observed this NA528 No. 5251 of 2026 3 Court in Hoffman Andreas v. Inspector of Customs, Amritsar, (2000) 10 SCC 430. The following passage is in this regard apposite: In such circumstances, if the new Counsel thought to have the material witnesses further examined, the Court could adopt latitude and a liberal view in the interest of justice, particularly when the Court has unbridled powers in the matter as enshrined in Section 311 of the Code. After all the trial is basically for the prisoners and courts should afford the opportunity to them in the fairest manner possible.' xxx xxx xxx xxx We are conscious of the fact that recall of the witnesses is being directed nearly four years after they were examined in chief about an incident that is nearly seven years old?.. we are of the opinion that on a parity of reasoning and looking to the consequences of denial of opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, we would prefer to err in favour of the appellant getting an opportunity rather than protecting the prosecution against a possible prejudice at his cost. Fairness of the trial is a virtue that is sacrosanct in our judicial system and no price is too heavy to protect that virtue. A possible prejudice to prosecution is not even a price, leave alone one that would justify denial of a fair opportunity to the accused to defend himself." 9. In Varsha Garg vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 SCC Online SC 986, the Apex Court has observed as under:- "32 The power of the court is not constrained by the closure of evidence. Therefore, it is amply clear from the above discussion that the broad powers under Section 311 are to be governed by the requirement of justice. The power must be exercised wherever the court finds that any evidence is essential for the just decision of the case. The statutory provision goes to emphasise that the court is not a hapless NA528 No. 5251 of 2026 4 bystander in the derailment of justice. Quite to the contrary, the court has a vital role to discharge in ensuring that the cause of discovering truth as an aid in the realization of justice is manifest." 10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Natasha Singh (supra), Dr. Rajesh Talwar (supra) and Varsha Garg (supra), this Court finds that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby quashed. 11. The Trial Court is directed to summon PW-2 for cross-examination and the applicant is directed to complete the cross-examination on the first date of her appearance, without any adjournment. 12. The present application is, allowed, accordingly. September 24, 2026 Neetu NA528 No. 5251 of 2026 5 (Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.) Digitally signed by :- NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad