Mohit Yadav Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

Mohit Yadav Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Orders dated 9.10.2024 and 10.3.2025 set aside; trial court directed to allow the counsel for the applicant to cross-examine the victim witness by calling her on a specific date, on cost of Rs.1,000/-. Relief confined to restoration of the opportunity of cross-examination; the wider prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings was not granted.

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceedings of Trial No.203 of 2019 (arising out of Case Crime No.450 of 2019) should be quashed, as prayed by the applicant. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Since the victim is the main witness, if the opportunity of cross-examination is not provided to the counsel for the applicant, the possibility of injustice with the applicant cannot be denied.

Key takeaways

The order dated 9.10.2024 as well as the order dated 10.3.2025 passed by the trial court are liable to be set aside.ratio¶16
The application is allowed; the trial court is directed to allow the counsel for the applicant to cross-examine the witness by calling her on any specific date, on cost of Rs.1,000/-.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Rajeev Singh, J., 17.10.2025) — Quashing sought of entire criminal proceedings of Trial No.203 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.450 of 2019 under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Ramnagar, District Barabanki — Victim (P.W.3) examined on 9.10.2024 and cross-examined only by counsel for the co-accused; applicant's application for grant of time to cross-examine rejected vide order dated 9.10.2024, and recall application rejected vide order dated 10.3.2025 — Held, the victim being the main witness, non-providing of the opportunity of cross-examination to the counsel for the applicant raises a possibility of injustice which cannot be denied; orders dated 9.10.2024 and 10.3.2025 set aside; application allowed; trial court directed to permit counsel for the applicant to cross-examine the witness by calling her on any specific date, on cost of Rs.1,000/-.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8610 of 2025

Mohit Yadav

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Brijendra Singh, Syed Raza Mehdi, Tilak Raj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 14

HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present application has been filed with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Trial No.203 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No.450 of 2019 under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Ramnagar, District Barabanki.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. He also submits that charge sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer, thereafter, charge was framed and trial was proceeded. He further submits that victim was examined as P.W.3 on 9.10.2024, thereafter, she was cross examined by lawyer of the co-accused, however, counsel for the applicant filed an application for grant of time to cross examine P.W.3 but the said application was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 9.10.2024. He also submits that applicant immediately filed an application for recall of order dated 9.10.2024, by which, opportunity of cross examination to the P.W.3 was closed, thereafter, said application was also rejected by the trial court vide order dated 10.3.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in case

A482 No. 8610 of 2025

2

opportunity of cross examination to the victim was not given to the counsel for the applicant, then it will be injustice with the applicant.

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the applicant and submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order but he does not dispute the fact that in case, witness is not cross examined then there is a chance of injustice.

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of the application as well as other relevant documents including the impugned order, it is evident from the order dated 9.10.2024 that victim appeared before the trial court for her examination-in-chief and on the said date, she also cross examined by the lawyer of the co-accused, however, counsel for the applicant moved an application for opportunity to cross examine the P.W.3. but the same was rejected, thereafter, an application for recall of order dated 9.10.2025 was moved, which was also rejected on 10.3.2025. As victim is the main witness and in case, opportunity to cross examination is not provided to the counsel for the applicant, then possibility of injustice with the applicant cannot be denied, therefore, this Court is of the view that order dated 9.10.2024 as well as order dated 10.3.2025 are liable to be set aside.

In view of the above, the present application is allowed and order dated 9.10.2024 & 10.3.2025 are hereby set aside.

The trial court is directed to allow the counsel for the applicant to cross examine the witness by calling her on any specific date on the cost of Rs.1,000/-.

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

October 17, 2025

GauraV/-

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench