V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.01.28

2026:CGHC:4277 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 179 of 2026

1 - Nikhilesh Tembhurne S/o Late Gangadhar Tembhurne Aged About 41 Years R/o Village- Rajnandgaon (Station Para Ward No. 11), Present Address- Ward No. 2, Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.)

2 - Shahrukh Khan @ F.R.K. S/o Mo. Islam Khan Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No.

2, Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondent(s)

(Cause title is taken from the CIS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioners : Shri Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Anish Tiwari, Dy GA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Order on Board

23.01.2026

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) against the impugned order dated 25.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC (POCSO Act), Ramanujganj, District-Balrampur- Ramanujganj, CG, in Special Sessions Case (POCSO)- 09 of 2022, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Section 311 of the CrPC (Section 248 of the BNSS 2023) has been rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners are accused persons in the Special Session Case (POCSO) No.9 of 2022, and facing trial for the offence under Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. Petitioner-1 Nikhilesh Tembhurne is facing trial for the offence punishable under Sections 354(A), 356(D)(2), 506(B) of the IPC, and petitioner-2 Shahrukh Khan @ FRK is facing trial for the offence of Section 16/17 of POCSO Act, and 509 of the IPC. They are facing trial since 04.03.2022. Victim has been examined as PW1, and her examination and cross-examination was completed on 05.07.2022. On 24.03.2023, application filed by the accused persons under Section 311 as decided on 19.07.2023, and the victim – PW1 was re cross- examined on 02.09.2023. Thereafter, petitioners have again filed another application on 13.11.2025 under Section 311 of the CrPC for recalling of the victim for her re-cross-examination, which has been rejected vide order dated 25.11.2025, and the said order is under challenge in the present CrMP.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that accused persons have not received copy of statement of the victim recorded under Section164 CrPC (here after referred to ‘164 statement of the victim’), therefore, she could not be cross-examined on that point. When learned counsel for the petitioners went through record of the trial Court, he came to know that 164 statement of the victim is annexed with the charge-sheet, in which there are material contradictions. Hence, she may be recalled for her re-cross-examination. He would further submit that petitioners have filed another application for supplying copy of 164 statement of the victim and since complete documents have not been supplied to the petitioners, he could not raise proper defense during cross-examination of the witnesses. Learned trial court has erroneously rejected the application without considering the true aspect of the case. He would also submit that in the aforesaid circumstances, and for any lapse on the part of the investigating agency by non-supplying copy of the 164 statement of the victim, the accused persons cannot be punished. Therefore, the petition may be allowed and the learned trial court may be directed to recall the victim PW1 for her re-cross-

examination.

4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the state opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the vic