Dismissed¶19

Arvind v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2025NA528/33034/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 528 BNSS; Section 311 Cr.P.C.; recall of witnesses for cross-examination; rejection of recall application; POCSO Act Section 5m/6; Sections 376(AB) IPC; Special Judge (POCSO Act) Ghaziabad; Case Crime No. 455 of 2023; Amicus Curiae; abuse of process; Manju Devi v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2019 SC 1976; Allahabad High Court; application dismissed; Jitendra Kumar Sinha, J.

What did the court decide?

None; the application U/s 528 BNSS was dismissed. ¶19

Arvind Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the application U/s 528 BNSS was dismissed.

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings of Case No. 06 of 2024 (arising out of Case Crime No. 455 of 2023, State Vs. Arvind), under Sections 376(AB) IPC and Section 5m/6 POCSO Act, pending before the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Ghaziabad, should be quashed under Section 528 BNSS. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

There is no abuse of the process of the Court by the order impugned.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Five witnesses were examined by the learned trial Court, opportunity of cross-examination was given to the applicant, and the applicant has cross-examined all the witnesses.

¶15

Key takeaways

Proposed questions to the witnesses sought to be recalled were not mentioned in the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.ratio¶16
The application U/s 528 BNSS lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Jitendra Kumar Sinha, J.; decision dated September 24, 2025) dismissed an application under Section 528 BNSS filed by Arvind seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Case No. 06 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 455 of 2023 (State Vs. Arvind), under Sections 376(AB) IPC and Section 5m/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Wave City (Gramin Commissionerate), District Ghaziabad, pending before the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Ghaziabad. The application attacked the trial Court's rejection of the applicant's application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recall of witnesses for cross-examination, counsel contending that the Amicus Curiae (appointed as the poor applicant had not engaged counsel) could not put important questions to the witnesses, and relying on Manju Devi Vs. The State of Rajasthan, AIR 2019 Supreme Court 1976. The Court found that five witnesses had already been examined and cross-examined by the applicant, that the proposed questions to the witnesses sought to be recalled were not mentioned in the Section 311 Cr.P.C. application, held that there was no abuse of the process of the Court by the impugned order, and dismissed the application as lacking merit.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33034 of 2025

Arvind

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Azaz Ahmad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 89

¶7

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶8

Heard Shri Azaz Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri B.P.Maurya, learned AGA for the State.

¶9

The present application u/s 528 of BNSS has been filed with prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Case No. 06 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.455 of 2023 (State Vs. Arvind), under Sections 376(AB) IPC and Section 5m/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Wave City (Gramin Commissionerate), District Ghaziabad, pending in the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Ghaziabad.

¶10

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the learned trial Court has rejected the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. on the ground that recalling the witness for cross-examination will cause delay in trial. It is further submitted that an Amicus Curiae was appointed to assist the trial Court as the applicant had not engaged any counsel as the applicant is a poor person. It is further submitted that the learned Amicus Curiae could not put important questions to the witnesses for the cross-examination and due to this, the applicant may suffer irreparable loss. It is further submitted that in the interest of justice, the trial Court ought to have allowed the application but the same has been rejected without looking into the fact that great prejudice shall be caused to the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manju Devi Vs. The State of Rajasthan, AIR 2019 Supreme Court 1976.

¶11

On the other hand, learned AGA submits that the opportunity of cross-

¶12

NA528 No. 33034 of 2025

¶13

¶14

examination was given to the applicant and five witnesses have already been examined and they have been cross-examined at length. It has not been mentioned as to what questions were put to be asked on the recall of the witnesses for cross-examination and the trial Court has rightly passed the order impugned.

¶15

On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the five witnesses were examined by the learned trial Court and opportunity of cross-examination was given to the applicant and the applicant has cross-examined all the witnesses.

¶16

On perusal of the entire material available on record proposed questions to the witnesses, who are sought to be recalled have not been mentioned in the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

¶17