USHA IYENGAR Vs. STATE OF MP & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order passed by this Court shall govern disposal of the above mentioned criminal revisions, as both the revisions have arisen out of common impugned order.

(2.) The applicant-prosecutrix has preferred the criminal revision No.2099/12 against the order dated 29.8.2012 passed by the learned 9 th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in ST No.310/2009 for framing of the charges for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 of IPC against the respondent No.2 (applicant-accused in Cr.R.No.2008/2012). On the other hand, the applicant-accused has preferred the Cr.R.No.2008/12 against the impugned order by which the charges of offence punishable under Sections 452, 376/511, 506-B read with Section 120-B of IPC were framed against the applicant-accused.

(3.) The prosecution's case, in short, is that the applicant-accused had lodged an FIR at Police Station Gorakhpur on 16.3.2006 that four accused persons went inside the house of the applicant-accused and threatened him. They held the collar of the applicantaccused and assaulted him, and therefore an offence under Sections 452, 294, 506, 323/34 of IPC was registered vide Crime No.151/2006. On 29.3.2006 the applicant-prosecutrix had sent a written report to the SHO Gorakhpur where upon she was informed about the report lodged by the accused-applicant, but actually on 16.3.2006 at about 1:00 PM various culprits (four accused in the case) went inside the campus of her house by jumping the courtyard wall and tried to kidnap her children and gave a threat that they would kidnap her children and they would commit rape upon her. They also tried to commit rape upon her. She was informed that the applicant-accused had also lodged an FIR, and therefore she may be given the copy of that FIR. She requested for the police protection and investigation. Thereafter the applicantprosecutrix sent various complaints to the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur, Human Rights Commission etc. By the intervention of Hon'ble the Division Bench of this Court, the case could be registered in the year 2009. The prosecutrix and her children gave their statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in detail. Thereafter a charge sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Sessions Court.