Gulshan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 18.8.2025, passed by the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge ( POCSO Act), Court No.2, Muzaffar Nagar in Special S.T. No. 218/9 of 2018 ( State Vs. Gulshan) arising out of case crime No. 523 of 2018, under Sections 354, 452 IPC and 7/8 of Prevention of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012, P.S. Nai Mandi, District Muzaffarnagar, whereby application for recall of PW-2 has been allowed partly, but for recall of PW-1, same has been rejected.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that he had filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C, which has been rejected vide impugned order dated 18.8.2025 by the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Court No.2, Muzaffar Nagar and there is illegality and perversity in the finding of the trial court.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA, appearing for the State has submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order and that relevant questions have been asked by the accused-revisionist during his crossexamination with the victim.

¶12

From the records, it is evident that the first information report of the present case was registered as case crime No. 523 of 2018. The victim is

¶13

CRLR No. 6587 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

minor. Thereafter, Section 7/8 of POCSO Act was also added. After framing of charge, the statement of PW-1/victim was recorded on 22.1.2020 and a detailed cross-examination has been completed by the accused. On 3.1.2023, sufficient and ample opportunity was provided to the accused-revisionist and he took sufficient time of three years to conclude the cross-examination with the victim/minor. The statement of PW-2 was recorded on 1.3.2023 and cross-examination was also completed by the accused. It is also apparent that earlier an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed which was rejected. Thereafter, the revisionist approached this Court and after that he further filed a detailed application under Section 311 Cr.P.C on 28.7.2025 which is rejected by the aforesaid impugned order.

¶16

The sessions trial pertains with the minor girls child and session trial is pending since 2018. The accused-revisionist is taking all efforts and took sufficient time. Initially the examination-in-chief of the victim had been recorded in the year 2020, which took three years to complete the crossexamination. This period cannot be treated as insufficient.

¶17

In the impugned order, the learned trial court had elaborately mentioned all questions placed by the accused-revisionist in his application and find that there is no substantial question to be further asked with the victim/PW-1. However, the learned trial court has provided an opportunity to further cross-examine the PW-2 (mother of the victim). There is no apparent illegality or irregularity in the impugned order.

¶18

In view thereof, this criminal revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed.

¶19

The revision is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶20

(Abdul Shahid,J.)

¶21

October 28, 2025 sfa/

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SYED FAHEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gulshan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulshan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nitin Agarwal and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Gori vs State of U.P. and Another

Poonam Chandila vs State of U.P. and Another

Hritik Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Manti Devi vs State of U.P. and 6 Others