Judgment 1 J-APL.933.2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 933 OF 2026 Akash s/o Dnyanba Khandare, Aged about 29 years, Occupation - Service, R/o. Borkhedi, Tah. Risod, District Washim. …. APPLICANT // VERSUS // 1) State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Risod, Tah. Risod, District – Washim. 2) X Y Z (Victim in Crime No.70/2021) Registered with Police Station, Risod, Tah. Risod, District – Washim. …. NON-APPLICANTS _____________________________________________________________ Mr. V. R. Deshpande, Advocate for applicant. Mr. A. G. Mate, Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant No.1/State. Mr. D. P. Mankar, Advocate holding for Mr. A. S. Shukla, Advocate for non-applicant No.2. _____________________________________________________________ CORAM : M.W. CHANDWANI, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 02, 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 07.04.2026, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Washim, below Exh.85 in Special (POCSO) Case No.31/2021, thereby rejecting the 2026:BHC-NAG:11651 Judgment 2 J-APL.933.2026.odt application for recalling P.W.-3 (mother of the victim) and P.W.-4 (victim) for further cross examination. 3. The applicant is being prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354-A, 452 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short the “POCSO Act”). 4. It appears that in the trial, the prosecution has examined the victim, her mother and two panchas. They have been cross examined by the counsel for the applicant and the case is pending for evidence of the Investigating Officer. The applicant filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge, Washim for recalling the witnesses i.e. P.W.-3 (mother of the victim) and P.W.-4 (victim) for their further cross examination mainly on the ground that their cross- examinations were conducted in the absence of the applicant. His counsel had conducted the cross-examination without any instructions from him and no question was putforth to the victim regarding some important aspects, including the age of the victim. The said application was objected to by the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both the parties, rejected the application showing instances that the applicant was constantly in touch with his counsel and therefore, the application has been filed on a false ground. Judgment 3 J-APL.933.2026.odt 5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for non-applicant No.2 assisting the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 6. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Sessions Judge, Washim meticulously dealt with all the instances to observe that there is no substance in the grounds mentioned in the application and rejected the application. No doubt, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly observed that the applicant was constantly in touch with his counsel, however, the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate another ground of the applicant that some important aspects have not been covered in the cross examination; more particularly, the age of the victim and the Aadhar Card filed along with the application which shows that the victim was born in the year 2002 whereas, the alleged incident has occurred on 01.02.2021. 7. Perusal of the chargesheet shows that the applicant is also charged with stringent provisions of the POCSO Act. Ultimately, the object of the trial is to find out the truth. No doubt, the premise of the application is not correct but the fact remains that the counsel for the applicant failed to putforth vital questions at least with regard to the age of the victim which may affect the valuable right of the applicant. Perusal of the order reveals that the application has also been rejected Judgment 4 J-APL.933.2026.odt on the ground that the victim is married and it will be not proper to again recall her. Learned counsel for non-applicant No.2 submitted that the victim has no objection if she is recalled for cross examination. 8. In my view to ensure fair trial and proper adjudication, it is expedient to allow the application of the applicant for recalling the victim and her mother for cross-examination on the grounds mentioned in the application. 9. So far as filing of the application on improper grounds is concerned, I think heavy costs can be imposed on the applicant. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order : (i) The criminal application is allowed. (ii) The order dated 07.04.2026, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Washim, below Exh. 85 in Special (POCSO) Case No.31/2021, is hereby quashed and set aside subject to deposit of costs of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand only) to be paid to the High Court Legal Services, Sub- Committee, Nagpur within a period of two weeks. 10. The criminal application is disposed of. (M.W. CHANDWANI, J.) Kirtak Signed by: Mr. B.J. Kirtak Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 03/09/2026 19:03:04