IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-71835-2025 Date of decision : 17.02.2026 Karnail Singh alias Bittu ...... Petitioner V/S State of Punjab and Anr.

..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present: Ms. Kamaljeet Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Vipul Babuta, Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab.

****

AMARJOT BHATTI J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner – Karnail Singh alias Bittu filed this petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of impugned order dated 18.11.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar vide which application filed by the petitioner under Section 348 of BNSS to recall and re-examine the victim as PW-1 for the purpose of cross-examination has been wrongly declined and the said order is unjust, illegal, untenable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be set aside.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that petitioner is accused in FIR No.0003 dated 04.01.2025 under Section 75, 78 of BNS 2023 and Section 11, 12 of POCSO Act, registered at Police Station, Rahon, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Punjab (Annexure P-2). During the pendency of trial, statement of the victim was recorded as PW-1. The copy of her statement is (Annexure P-6). The witnesses could not be cross-examined on certain material facts. As a result, application was filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P- 3) to recall the witness for further cross-examination. The reply filed by the complainant is (Annexure P-4). Without considering the aforesaid factual position, the application is declined by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar vide impugned order dated 18.11.2025 (Annexure P-1). Therefore, present petition may be allowed. The aforesaid impugned order dated 18.11.2025 may kindly be set aside and the petitioner/accused may be granted one opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

3. Learned counsel representing State opposed the petition by taking the stand that the prosecutrix as PW-1 was cross-examined at length by the counsel for accused. The petitioner has failed to give any justification to recall the witness for further cross-examination. By appreciating the factual position, the application was rightly declined.

4. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record carefully. The prosecutrix is examined as PW-1, who is a young girl of 13 years of age. Her statement was recorded and she was duly cross-examined by learned counsel for the accused at length. Thereafter the petitioner/accused filed application (Annexure P-3) to recall the witness for further cross-examination. As per the contents of application, it is mentioned that at the time of cross- examination of the witness, few necessary questions could not be put to the witness due to oversight. Therefore, she is required for further cross- examination. The aforesaid assertion in the application is general and vague in nature. No specific reason has come on record which require recall of the witness for further cross-examination. Perusal of statement of minor victim recorded as PW-1 indicates that she was cross-examined at length. Now, on the basis of aforesaid vague application, the witness cannot be recalled to face further cross-examination.

In the light of this, the application was rightly declined by learned trial court by passing well-reasoned impugned order dated 18.11.2025 (Annexure P-1) and the same is accordingly upheld. The petition preferred by the petitioner is accordingly declined.

5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly as well.

(AMARJOT BHATTI )

JUDGE

17.02.2026.

Sunil Devi Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No