HIRALAL DHURVE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has preferred this criminal revision under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the impugned order dtd. 13/01/2021 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge (POCSO Act), Mandla in SPL ST No. 42/2020 whereby charge of Sec. 376 of IPC and Sec. 5/6 of POCSO Act has been framed against the applicant.

(2.) The allegation against the applicant is that he has given advise to the accused persons and prosecutrix not to disclose the true facts before the police and also before the Court.

(3.) Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an Advocate and nothing illegal has been done by him, because being an Advocate it is his duty to give a better advise to his clients, so as to create defence in their favour. He submits that as such no offence is made out against the present applicant, but trial court has failed to consider this aspect and framed the offence under Sec. 19 and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.