HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6900 of 2026 Court No. - 90 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The present criminal appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 08.06.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Etawah, in Special Trial No. 57 of 2026 (State v. Aman Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 346 of 2015, under Sections 366 and 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(xii) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Etawah. 3. Learned A.G.A. has filed a compliance affidavit before the Registry, which is not on record. The Registry is directed to place the same on record. 4. The present F.I.R. was registered in the year 2015 under Sections 147, 376, 506, 366, 120-B, and 323 I.P.C. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that one more opportunity may be provided to the appellant in the said case to cross examine the P.W.- 1. 6. The learned trial court, while passing the impugned order, observed that upon perusal of the record, it appeared that the examination-in-chief of P.W.-1 was recorded on 02.05.2017. As the accused did not cross-examine the said witness on that date, his right to cross-examination was closed. Thereafter, the accused filed application 32-Kha seeking time to cross- examine P.W.-1, which was allowed by the learned trial court on 05.09.2024. Even thereafter, the accused failed to complete the cross- examination of the said witness. On 05.01.2026, the witness was present before the court since morning, but no one appeared on behalf of the accused to cross-examine her. Consequently, the opportunity for cross-examination was closed once again. Subsequently, the accused filed another application Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Saurabh Pathak Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Aman Singh .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. .....Respondent(s) seeking further opportunity to cross-examine P.W.-1. 7. The learned trial court observed that sufficient opportunity had already been provided to the accused for cross-examination. Despite this, the accused failed to complete the cross-examination. The examination-in-chief of P.W.-1 was recorded in the month of May 2017, yet the cross- examination remained incomplete. Although granted another opportunity upon application, the accused again failed to cross examine the P.W.-1. On the relevant date, while the witness remained present in court since morning, neither counsel for the accused appeared nor was any adjournment application filed. Hence, the opportunity to cross-examine was rightly closed. 8. While the opportunity of hearing is an inherent right of the accused, the abuse and misuse of the process of law to make court proceedings run at the whims and wishes of the accused is not the intention of the law. The appellant/accused cannot be permitted to use and misuse the entire legal process according to his own whims and wishes. The time has come when unscrupulous litigants who used and misused the process of law and wants the trial proceedings to move at their whims and wishes. It must be discouraged not encouraged. 9. With these observations and findings, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. September 29, 2026 K.K. Maurya CRLA No. 6900 of 2026 2 (Abdul Shahid,J.) Digitally signed by :- KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad