R/SCR.A/12216/2026(GJHC240629892026) ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 12216 of 2026 ================================================================ DHANJIBHAI TRIKAMBHAI JADAV Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ================================================================ Appearance: JAY J JANI(9303) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 20/08/2026 ORDER 1. By filing the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “(A) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting impugned order dated 21/07/2026 passed below Exh.45 by the learned 7th Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Navrangpura in POCSO Case No. 28/2024, and further be pleased to allow the application below Exh.45 filed by the petitioner, which is at Annexure-A and thereby be pleased to allow the petitioner herein to re-examine the Victim and complainant by recalling them; (B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Honourable Court may be pleased to stay the further proceedings of POCSO Case No. 28/2024, which is pending before Ld. 7th Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at R/SCR.A/12216/2026(GJHC240629892026) ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026 Navrangpura;” 2. The petitioner herein happens to be an accused for an offence punishable under the provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act” for short) and is facing trial for the same. The deposition of the victim came to be recorded before the learned trial court vide Exh.10 on 19.09.2024. Thereafter the depositions of the other witnesses i.e. the parents of the victim had also been recorded. After the deposition of the mother of the victim was recorded on 26.11.2024, an application came to be submitted by the petitioner vide Exh.16 for recall of the victim. The said application was turned down by the learned Special Court vide order dated 11.02.2025. Thereafter the deposition of the father of the victim came to be recorded vide Exh.41 on 19.06.2026 and again thereafter on 20.06.2026 an application vide Exh.45 came to be submitted by the petitioner for recall of the victim for further cross-examination. The said application was also dismissed by the learned Special Court vide order dated 21.07.2026. 2.1 Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this court by filing the present petition. 3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Jay J. Jani appearing for the petitioner and learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat appearing for the Respondent – State. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Jani appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, after the registration of the offence and upon conclusion of investigation, the investigating agency had filed charge sheet against the petitioner on the respective offences. Thereafter the deposition of the victim came to be recorded before the learned Special Court vide Exh.10 on 19.09.2024. The victim had supported the case of the prosecution in R/SCR.A/12216/2026(GJHC240629892026) ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026 her deposition. However, thereafter the mother of the victim had deposed before the learned Special Court vide Exh.15, and since, she had not supported the case of the prosecution, she was declared hostile. Thereafter, the depositions of other witnesses were recorded vide Exh.41 and Exh. 39 on 19.06.2026. Both these witnesses, in their cross- examination in the hands of the Defense Counsel had stated that the FIR in question was lodged by the father of the victim upon being instructed by the villagers belonging to the Darbar Community. Both these witnesses have also stated in their respective depositions that no incident as alleged in the FIR had taken place. Therefore, certain questions are required to be asked to the victim in the cross-examination. Those questions would be required for the just decision in the matter, and therefore, the petitioner had submitted an application vide Exh.45 before the learned Special Court invoking the provisions of Section 348 of BNSS for recall of the victim, which was turned down by the learned Special Court vide the impugned order, mainly on the ground that earlier also similar such application was submitted by the petitioner vide Exh.16, which was turned down by the learned Special Court vide judgment and order dated 11.02.2025. However, the reasons and grounds for furnishing an application vide Exh. 45, are different from the application vide Exh.16, and therefore, the learned Special Court ought to have taken these aspects into consideration while deciding the Application Exh.45. He submitted that it is the duty of the learned trial court to arrive at a just decision at the end of the trial and, for the said purpose, certain questions are required to be put to the victim in her further cross-examination. He further submitted that though the provisions of POCSO Act had provided that the victim should not be called repeatedly for recording of her deposition, the same would not bar the petitioner from claiming his right under Section 348 of BNSS for recall. He therefore submitted to allow the present petition and quash and set aside the impugned order and direct R/SCR.A/12216/2026(GJHC240629892026) ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026 the learned Special Court to recall the victim for further cross- examination. Learned Advocate for the petitioner further submits that the order passed by the learned trial court below Application Exh. 45 suffers from several inconsistencies. 5. Learned APP has opposed the present petition inter alia contending that the order passed by the learned Special Court, which is impugned in the petition is just and proper and the same requires no interference at the hands of this court. He therefore submitted to dismiss the present petition. 6. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties. 7. The petitioner herein is facing trial for an offence punishable under the provisions of POCSO Act. The deposition of the victim came to be recorded before the learned trial court vide Exh.10 on 19.09.2024. The perusal of the deposition of the victim would indicate that, she, in her deposition, had supported the case of the prosecution. A detailed cross- examination of the victim, at the hands of the Defence Counsel, had also been conducted. Thereafter, certain other witnesses, including the parents of the victim, came to be examined before the learned Special Court. However, those witnesses had not supported the case of the prosecution in their depositions. The father of the victim went on to admit in the cross-examination that no incident as alleged in the FIR had taken place, the FIR was lodged on the basis of instructions given by the villagers belonging to a particular community. 8. It is pertinent to note that prior to submitting an application Exh.45, the petitioner had submitted an application vide Exh. 16 seeking to recall the victim for her further cross-examination. The said application was dismissed by the learned Special Court vide judgment and order dated R/SCR.A/12216/2026(GJHC240629892026) ORDER DATED: 20/08/2026 11.02.2025. Thereafter, again, with the very same prayer, another application vide Exh.45 was submitted by the petitioner which was also dismissed by the learned Special court vide the impugned order. 8.1 The claim of the petitioner for recall of the witness for further cross-examination rests upon the deposition of witnesses, who have not supported the case of the prosecution. Merely because certain witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, the same would not give rise to the reason for recall of the witness, whose deposition has already been recorded, and who also has been cross-examined at the hands of the Defense Counsel in detail. It would be for the learned trial court to evaluate the evidence as it is while appreciating the evidence. Therefore, no ground is made out for recall of the victim as prayed for in the petition. Hence, the petition stands dismissed. (M. R. MENGDEY,J) J.N.W / 25 / C Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: JAYANTILAL NARAYAN WAGHELA(HC00178), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 24/08/2026 10:30:40