PRADEEP BAFNA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dtd. 11/3/2023, passed in S.T. No.52/2021 by First Additional Sessions Judge, Jaora District Ratlam (M.P) wherein the two persons are facing trial under Ss. 376(2) (n), 450, 385, 506, 328, 411, 420, 120-B, 354 (G), 201, 176 of IPC and Sec. 66-E of the Information and Technology Act, 2000.

(2.) The allegations against the petitioners are that they happen to be the mother and father of the main accused Nishit @ Mayur and they were proceeded under Sec. 319 of the Cr.P.C. as the application was filed by the respondent/prosecution under Sec. 319 of the Cr.P.C. that the petitioners be also prosecuted in the said offence. The application was filed on 11/3/2023, when the matter was already fixed for cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, and on the same day, it was allowed and the charges were also framed, and the petitioners were asked to cross-examine the accused persons. Against the petitioners, charges under Ss. 385, 506-II r/w Sec. 120-B of the IPC has been framed. Thus, the main allegation is of extortion.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the aforesaid mode adopted by the trial Court runs contrary to the criminal jurisprudence as it was necessary for the trial Court to furnish the copy of the charge-sheet to the petitioners. It is also submitted that even assuming the statements of the witnesses to be correct, there is almost no chance that the prosecution would be able to prove the involvement of the present petitioners in the case as their names has not been mentioned by the prosecutrix in the FIR and also in her statement recorded under Sec. 161 of the Cr.P.C.