HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 15930 of 2026 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Mohammad Belal, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The applicant, by means of this application has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the order dated 25.2.2026 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), SC/ST Act, Hapur in Session Case no. 145 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime no. 573 of 2023 under sections 147, 336, 304 IPC, PS- Pilkhuwa, District Hapur. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that during trial of aforesaid Session Case no. 145 of 2025, on dated 2.9.2024 and 17.3.2025, testimony of PW1 and PW2 was recorded but on that date some important questions could not be asked by the applicant's counsel. Being aggrieved with same, applicant moved application under Section 311 Cr.P.C before learned trial court on 2.2.2026 mentioning that it is necessary to provide opportunity to applicant for witness/cross-examination of PW1 and PW2 but the said application has been rejected vide impugned order dated 25.2.2026. Learned counsel for applicant undertakes not to seek further cross-examination of any prosecution witnesses and Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohammad Belal Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rafuddeen .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) prayed for only one date opportunity to cross-examine PW-1. 4. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer sought through the instant application. 5. Since the entire argument has been raised by learned counsel for applicant over legal issue as such process to issue notice to opposite party no. 2 is hereby dispensed with. 6. Learned counsel for applicant placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in the case of G.R.Gulati Vs. State of U.P. & another, 2014 (3) JIC 729 (Alld), wherein paragraphs 6 and 9 it has been held as below: "6. .....There is a duty cast upon the court to arrive at the truth by all lawful means and one of such means is the examination of witnesses of its own accord when for certain obvious reasons either party is not prepared to call witnesses who are known to be in a position to speak important relevant facts. ... ... 9. .....The prompt decision of criminal case is to be commended and encouraged but in reaching at these results, the accused, who are charged with a serious offence, must not be stripped of his valuable right of a fair and impartial trial because it would be negation of concept of due process of law. Regardless of the merits of the case, the court has not only to look into the case of the prosecution but has also to keep in mind the defence version." 7. Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties and looking into the gravity of the offence for which the applicant has been charged and to balance the scale of justice, order dated 25.2.2026 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), SC/ST Act, Hapur in Session Case no. 145 of 2025, is hereby quashed. Applicant be allowed only one date opportunity to cross-examine PW-1 and PW-2 at the cost Rs.2,000/- to be deposited by the applicant before trial court concerned and thereafter learned trial NA528 No. 15930 of 2026 2 court will summon PW-1 and PW-2 for cross-examination on the date fixed and the witness will be cross-examined on the same date positively. However, it is made clear that if statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has already been recorded, no opportunity in favour of applicant for cross-examining the PW-1 and PW-2 will be extended by learned trial court concerned. 8. In view thereof, the instant application is partly allowed. May 5, 2026 Shaswat NA528 No. 15930 of 2026 3 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad