Harish @ Harish Tomar vs State Of U.P. And Another
2019 Latest Caselaw 6165 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 65
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 26505 of 2019
 

 
Applicant :- Harish @ Harish Tomar
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Rai
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

Sri Vikas Sharma, Advocate holding brief of Sri Amit Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri A.D. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to allow this Crl. Misc. Application and quash the impugned order dated 6.6.2019 passed by learned Court of Special, (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Muzaffar Nagar in Special Sessions Trial No. 127/9 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 300 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 368 and 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Charthawal, District Muzaffar Nagar, whereby it has rejected the application of applicant under Section 311 of Cr.P.C..

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that impugned order dated 6.6.2019 has been wrongly passed by the trial court as by the said order, the application of the accused to recall the PW-2 Kr. Sanjana, for being cross-examined, has been dismissed erroneously. He has drawn attention of the court to the order sheet dated 3.7.2018 in which it has been recorded that the statement of PW-2 has been recorded and 12.7.2018 was fixed for the remaining evidence. The main emphasis of the argument is that on single day, her examination-in-chief as well as cross examination has been recorded, while the accused wanted to cross-examine this witness further, for which opportunity has been refused by the impugned order.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of the quashing of the impugned order.

I have gone through the impugned order. In it, it has been recorded that the accused was given full opportunity to cross-examine the witness but it appears that only to harass the victim, she has been prayed to be recalled again for being cross-examined, hence the said application has been dismissed. In the said order, provision of Section 33 of the POCSO Act has been quoted, which provides that victim cannot be repeatedly called for her statement to be recorded. I have also gone through the statement of the victim, which has been annexed at page 58, 59 and 60, which clearly shows that the accused applicant was given full opportunity and at the end of the said cross-examination, even suggestion was given from the side of defence and hence, it appears from perusal of the said statement that entire cross-examination was concluded. In view of above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the same deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 9.7.2019

A.P. Pandey