ORDER

1. This application under section 482 of CrPC has been filed against the order dated 23.10.2021 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act), District Bhind in ATR No.41/2020, by which right of the applicants to crossexamine the prosecutrix has been closed.

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that on 16.9.2021 the prosecutrix had appeared, but because of reference on account of death of an Advocate, she could not be examined. Thereafter, again she appeared on 9.10.2021, but counsel for the applicants was not ready to crossexamine her. Accordingly, case was adjourned with a stipulation that in case, if the counsel for the applicants does not cross-examine the prosecutrix on the next date of hearing, then the right of the applicant to cross-examine her shall be closed. Thereafter, it appears that on 23.10.2021 the prosecutrix appeared and her examination-in-chief was started at 12:00 PM. During recording of examination-in-chief of the prosecutrix, counsel for the applicants was present and the examinationin-chief was concluded by 12:20 PM, but Shri Neeraj Shrivastava, Advocate who was contesting the case on behalf of the applicants did not appear in spite of repeated instructions and associate counsel of Shri Neeraj Shrivastava was repeatedly insisting that the cross-examination shall be done by Shri Neeraj Shrivastava, Advocate only. At a later stage, associate counsel of Shri Neeraj Shrivastava once again appeared before the trial Court and prayed for deferment of the cross-examination. However, no reason for the same was pointed out. Since the counsel for the applicants was not interested in cross-examining the prosecutrix, therefore, the Court closed the right of the applicants to cross-examine the prosecutrix by exercising powers under section 309 of CrPC.

3. Challenging the order passed by the Court below, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that Shri Neeraj Shrivastava had appeared before the Trial Court at 16:20 on 23.10.2021 and the closure of the rights of the applicants to cross-examine the prosecutrix would cause irreparable loss to them and, therefore, a last opportunity may be granted to crossexamine the prosecutrix.

4. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. It is submitted that the prosecutrix is minor and the applicants were trying to create all sorts of hurdles, so that her evidence may not be recorded. The applicants cannot be permitted to hijack the Court proceedings. Whenever the prosecutrix appeared before the trial Court, every attempt was made to avoid the recording of her evidence. This is against the concept of section 33 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short “POCSO Act”) which regulates the procedure for examination of a juvenile. Section 35 of the POCSO Act provides that the evidence of the child shall be recorded within a period of 30 days of the Special Court taking cognizance of the offence and reasons for delay, if any, shall be recorded by the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court shall complete the trial as far as possible within a period of one year from the date of taking cognizance of the offence. The accused cannot be permitted to harass the minor prosecutrix by adopting delaying tactics. Unfortunately, in the present case, even the counsel for the applicants got himself involved in delaying tactics.

5. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that in fact, the adjournment was being sought by their counsel and they had never instructed him to do so.

6. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the applicants.

7. If the counsel for the applicants was seeking adjournment on his own contrary to their instructions, then either they should have changed their counsel or they have a right to approach the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh for professional misconduct of their counsel, but the minor prosecutrix cannot be allowed to be harassed by the accused persons by adopting such impermis