SMT. NARMADA PATHAK Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts necessary for resolving the controversy are as under:

(2.) SHRI Ankit Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on : AIR 1999 SC 2292 (Rajendra Prasad Vs. Narcotic Cell through its Officer -in -charge, Delhi) and, 2011 (2) Crimes 161(Ori.) (State of Orissa Vs. Durjo @ Duryodhana Sanamajhi & others) to submit that the Court below ought to have allowed the said application and committed error in rejecting the same by order dated 12.10.2011.

(3.) PER contra, Shri Sanjay Gupta, Advocate for the accused supported the order and stated that the accused's father met the police authorities much before filing of Annexure P -3 and preferred a complaint that the petitioner is threatening them that if Rs.2.00 lacs is not paid, she will depose against them. The learned counsel placed reliance on 2009 (4) Crimes 315 (M.P.) (Raghuveer Prasad Sharma Vs. State of M.P.).He further submits that on account of the fact that neither in the FIR it is stated that those persons have seen the incident nor their statements are recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., at this stage those persons cannot be permitted to enter the witness box.