Dismissed¶28

Kishan Rathore v. State of NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC4 Apr 2025CRL.M.C./2287/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court; CRL.M.C. 2287/2025; Kishan Rathore v. State of NCT of Delhi; Neena Bansal Krishna; Section 482 CrPC; Section 528 BNSS; Section 311 CrPC; Section 348 BNSS; Section 164 CrPC statement; defence witnesses; tender age witnesses; POCSO; Section 376 IPC; FIR 92/2018 PS Geeta Colony; SC 581/2018; ASJ East Karkardooma; dismissal of S.311 application upheld; PW-6 re-examination not pressed.

What did the court decide?

The Application under S.311 Cr.P.C. read with S.348 B.N.S.S. seeking examination of the girls as defence witnesses was rightly dismissed by the learned ASJ: although the prosecutrix named four girls in her S.164 Cr.P.C. statement, investigation had shown the parents were not willing and unaware, and the witnesses sought to be brought are girls of tender age (6-7 years). ¶23

Kishan Rathore Vs State of NCT of Delhi — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner/accused could be permitted to summon and examine, as defence witnesses, the three minor girls/friends named by the Prosecutrix in her Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., i.e., whether the learned ASJ's Order dated 24.02.2025 dismissing the Application under S.311 Cr.P.C. read with S.348 B.N.S.S. was correct.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

¶23

Key takeaways

This Court found no merit in the Petition challenging the trial court's dismissal and accordingly dismissed and disposed of the Petition.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRL.M.C. 2287/2025, High Court of Delhi (Neena Bansal Krishna, J., 04.04.2025) - Kishan Rathore v. State of NCT of Delhi. Petition by the accused under S.482 Cr.P.C. read with S.528 B.N.S.S. challenging the Order dated 24.02.2025 of the learned ASJ (POCSO), East Karkardooma Court, in SC No. 581/2018 (FIR No. 92/2018, S.376 IPC & S.6 POCSO Act, PS Geeta Colony, Delhi), whereby the accused's Application under S.311 Cr.P.C. read with S.348 B.N.S.S. - seeking examination of three girls/friends aged about 7-8 years, whose names the Prosecutrix had given in her Statement under S.164 Cr.P.C. - was dismissed. Held: although the prosecutrix had taken the names of four girls with whom she was playing, investigation showed the parents were not willing and the children unaware, and the witnesses sought were girls of tender age (6-7 years); the Application was rightly dismissed. The Petition, being without merit, was dismissed and disposed of. The Court noted the Petition's mention of an intent to re-examine PW-6 (Dr. Vijay Patidar, Senior Surgeon SDN Hospital) was inadvertently recorded and the Petitioner did not press it. Companion CRL.M.A. 10292/2025 (Exemption) was allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶1

$~56

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 2287/2025

¶4

KISHAN RATHORE .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Durgesh Kr. Dwivedi, Mr. Rahul Raj and Ms. Shweta Dixit and Ms. Manjeet Kaur, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 04.04.2025

¶12

CRL.M.A. 10292/2025 (Exemption)

¶13

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

The Application stands disposed of.

¶15

CRL.M.C. 2287/2025

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’ ) read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘B.N.S.S.’ ) has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner/accused, Kishan Rathore, to challenge the Order dated 24.02.2025, passed by the learned ASJ East Karkardooma Court in SC No. 581/2018, FIR No. 92/2018 under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Geeta Colony, Delhi vide which the learned ASJ, POCSO, has dismissed the Application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 348 of B.N.S.S.

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 09:57:34

¶19

seeking examination of three girls/friends aged about 7-8 years, who were claimed with the Prosecutrix at the time of commission of offence.

¶20

It is submitted in the Application that the names of these friends have been given by the Prosecutrix in her Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and are, therefore, material witnesses, who may be permitted to be examined by the Petitioner/accused in his defence as defence witnesses. It is submitted that the learned ASJ has not rightly appreciated the importance of these witnesses and has dismissed the Application by a cryptic Order dated 24.02.2025. A prayer is made that these witnesses may be permitted to be summoned by the accused in his defence.

¶21

Learned APP for the State, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, submits that during the investigations, the Investigating Officer had approached the parents of these girls, who all have stated that their daughters are not aware of anything about the incident and do not want to give any statement. It is, therefore, submitted that this Application has been rightly dismissed by the learned ASJ.

¶22

Submissions heard and the record perused.

¶23

It is no doubt correct that the prosecutrix in her Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. had taken the name of four girls with whom she was playing but the Investigating Officer has already conducted the investigations wherein the parents of these girls, were not inclined and stated that they were not aware and did not want to be a witness in the present case. It is, therefore, in the given circumstances and also considering that the witnesses sought to be brought, are girls of tender age of 6-7 years; the Application has been rightly dismissed.

¶24

Pertinently, in the present Petition, it is also mentioned that the

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 09:57:34

¶27

Petitioner intends to re-examine PW-6, Dr. Vijay Patidar, Senior Surgeon SDN Hospital. However, it is submitted that the Petitioner does not want reexamination of PW-6 and the same has been inadvertently recorded incorrectly in the Petition. He, however, submits that he may be given the liberty to file a fresh Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court to seek the cross-examination of PW-6.

¶28

There is no merit in the Petition, which is hereby dismissed and disposed of accordingly.

¶29

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J

¶30

APRIL 4, 2025/RS

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 09:57:34

Kishan Rathore v. State of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishan Rathore v. State of NCT of Delhi

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

Kiran Vs State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Syed Vaseeulla Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Awatar Krishan Thusu Vs Anita Raina

Aasheesh Kumar Paandey Vs State & Anr.

Karma Contractors and Developers Vs the State (Nct of Delhi & Anr.

Vipin Jain Vs Govt. of NCT Delhi & Anr.