IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for strong and valid reasons to recall witnesses, the protection of child victims from repeated testimony, and the discretion of the court in exercising the power to recall witnesses.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, `Cr.P.C.'), challenging the Order dated 20.08.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the `Impugned Order') passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-01, Special Court (POCSO Act), North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Trial Court') in SC 253/2018, titled State v. Narender Singh, dismissing the application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. by the petitioner seeking recalling of the victim (PW-1) and her mother/complainant (PW-2) for further cross-examination.

Factual Matrix:

2. The above criminal case has been registered on a final report filed by the police upon the completion of the investigation in FIR No. 404/2017 registered at Police Station: K.N. Katju Marg, Rohini District, Delhi, under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, `IPC') and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the `POCSO Act').

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 04.09.2017, the victim, aged around 17 years, went to her tuition class at about 2:00 PM., when her tuition teacher, the petitioner herein, forcefully touched her private parts from inside her clothes. A medical examination was conducted at the BSA Hospital. Her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded on 05.09.2017. Charges under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and under Section 354 of the IPC were framed against the petitioner by the learned Trial Court vide Order dated 02.06.2018 passed by the learned Trial Court. The statement of PW-1, the victim, was recorded on 31.08.2018. In spite of opportunity granted, she was not cross-examined by the petitioner. Later, on 06.02.2019, the petitioner filed an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., praying for the PW-1 to be recalled for her cross-examination. The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Court, and PW-1 was cross-examined by the petitioner on 04.09.2019 and 30.10.2019 and her cross-examination was concluded.

4. The petitioner thereafter, again, filed an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., again praying for recalling of PW-1 and this time, also of PW-4, the father of the victim, for further cross-examination. This application was, however, dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide Order dated 29.09.2020.

5. The petitioner challenged the above Order by way of a Revision Petition, being Crl.Rev.P. 336/2020, titled Narinder Singh v. State before this Court. The same was dismissed by this Court vide its judgment dated 21.10.2020.

6. The petitioner thereafter, again filed an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., seeking to recall PW-1 for further cross-examination. In this application, the petitioner now also prayed for the recall of PW-2, that is, the complainant/the mother of the victim, for her cross-examination. The said application has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court by way of the Impugned Order.

Submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner:

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court has erred in not considering that the bar under sub-Section (5) of Section 33 of the POCSO Act gets diluted once the victim attains the age of majority. He submits that as the PW-1 has attained the age of majority, the bar of Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act would no longer apply, and the petitioner should have been allowed by the learned Trial Court to further cross-examine the PW-1. In support, he places reliance on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Mahammad Ali Akbar v. State of Karnataka, 2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1048; and of the Madras High Court in Sankar v. State, (Judgment dated 28.06.2022 in CRL.O.P. (MD) No. 11427/2022), and S. Ganeshan v. State, (Judgment dated 07.03.2022 in CRL.O.P. No.4131/2022). He further submits that this Court in the Judgment dated 21.10.2020, wrongly considered the bar of Sectio