JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. claiming the following reliefs: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this misc. petition may kindly be allowed and order dated 27.11.2018 passed by Special Judge, Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and the Commission for Protection of Child Right Act 2005 No.2, Udaipur, District Udaipur (Rajasthan) in case No.69/2018 (Khem Raj @ Khema Versus State) arising out of FIR No.0491/2017, Police Station Amba Mata, District Udaipur may be quashed and set aside and learned trial court may be directed to recall prosecutrix for re-examination and application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. may be allowed as such. Any other appropriate direction or order which is in favour of petitioner may kindly be passed." 2. During trial for the offence of rape, the petitioner has moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall the prosecutrix for examination, which has been rejected by the learned court below vide order dated 27.11.2018. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before this Court the statements of Ganesh, the father of respondent No.2-Ganga Kumari, Kishan, the brother of respondent No.2 and Khemli, the mother of the respondent No.2. 4. Xxx XXX XXX 5. On a bare perusal of the aforementioned statements, it is clear that the parents as well as the brother of respondent No.2 have not supported the prosecution story. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 jointly submit that the respondent No.2 is now above 16 years of age, and therefore, recalling her as a witness would be necessary in the best interest of justice. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that looking into the heinous offence, the power of Section 311 Cr.PC. need not to be exercised. 8. After perusing the record of the case, including the aforesaid statements rendered by father of respondent No.2, brother of respondent No.2 and mother of respondent No.2 as well as looking into the joint request of learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.2, this Court finds that recalling of the prosecutrix at this stage would be appropriate. Such recalling shall be without prejudice to the application of mind to be made by the learned court below so as to consider as to how the change in stand has to be dealt with, if at all the same is done. Such recalling shall be without prejudice to the application of mind to be made by the learned court below so as to consider as to how the change in stand has to be dealt with, if at all the same is done. 9. In an ordinary course, this Court would not have allowed the present petition, but looking into the peculiar facts and circumstances and the consent given by learned counsel for respondent No.2 for allowing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., it is deemed appropriate that the prosecutrix be recalled for examination, which shall only give proper opportunity to the parties to get the adjudication done in an appropriate manner. It is also submitted by counsel for the respondent No.2 that the parents of the girl also consent to allowing of the application under Section 311 of CR.P.C. as preferred by the petitioner. 10. Thus, without prejudice to the ongoing trial, this Court allows the present petition and while quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 27.11.2018 passed by Special Court, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the Commission for Protection of Child Right Act 2005 No.2, Udaipur, District Udaipur, learned court below is directed to recall the prosecutrix for re-examination and thereafter, proceed with the trial strictly in accordance with law.