JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Mohammad Firoz Khan, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

2. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by all three accused persons Gyan Chandra, Deshraj and Gopi @ Ashok Kumar, for quashing the impugned order dated 28th January, 2016 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge / F.T.C, Kaushambi in S.T No. 07 of 2015 - State Vs. Gyan Chandra and others, under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2) (H), 504 I.P.C and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station - Sarai Akil, Distrit Kaushambi, arising out Case Crime No. 257 of 2013, by which the Trial Court rejected the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C for summoning the victim P.W. 2 for cross-examination.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the first informant Smt. Rampati W/o Lavkush, lodged an F.I.R on 07.09.2013, regarding the incident dated 05.09.2013 that on the fateful day she had gone to the field for work leaving the victim (her daughter) aged about 14 years, student of Class-VIII alone in her house and when she returned back she found that her daughter was not present and the household articles were disordered. Accused-applicant Gyan Chandra S/o Roshan Lal of the neighbourhood was also missing. Cash amount Rs.10,000/-, a golden chain, golden Mangalsutra, two silver anklet, and a bank A.T.M Card of her husband of Union Bank of India were also missing. She apprehended that accused-Gyan Chandra, Deshraj and Gopi @ Ashok Kumar have lured her daughter and have taken her away. A few days back there was a dispute with Gyan Chandra, who had threatened to look into it and to insult her in the society. She searched out her daughter but could not find, hence report/information was lodged.

4. Contrary to the allegations levelled in the F.I.R, it is averred by the applicants that applicant no. 1 and the victim were consenting party and had fallen in love to each other and in this way both passed about two months eleven days with each other, they also got married and had also prepared marriage agreement (Annexure No. 2) on 25.11.2012 at Kaushambi.

5. The I.O. has submitted charge-sheet wrongly. During the trial all the relevant witnesses have been examined, but the applicants were provided only a single date for cross-examination of the victim, on the said date due to illness of the counsel was not in a position to cross-examine, hence an adjournment application was moved, but the learned trial court without giving any opportunity for cross-examination, rejected the application on 03.02.2015. Certified copy of the relevant order-sheet since 13.01.2015 to 10.03.2016 is being annexed as Annexure no. 3 to the affidavit.

6. An application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved on 24.12.2015 before the trial court for providing opportunity to cross-examination of the victim P.W. 2, which is annexed as Annexure no. 4 to this affidavit, but it was rejected on 28th January, 2016 without considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without giving any weight to the application. The applicants are not willing to delay the trial, but as they are behind the bar and the co-accused applicant no. 3 was in Haryana Jail, since the victim P.W 2 is the main witness, hence her cross-examination is necessary for a fair trial and proper adjudication. Applicant no. 1 and victim are major and they have solemnized their marriage at their own sweet-will. After recovery and arrest the victim was sent to their parents and applicant no. 1 was sent to Jail. The order dated 28.01.2016 passed by the trial court is arbitrary and perverse and is liable to be quashed. Hence, the application be allowed and an opportunity be provided to cross examine the victim P.W. 2.

7. The State has filed counter affidavit no. 02 of 2016 and has alleged that the contents of the application are not correct, the victim was a minor girl aged about 15 years, hence no question arises to give consent to the applicant n