RAHUL BADGAIYA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. is being preferred against registration of the offences under Ss. 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 376, 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Ss. 3,4,5,6 of Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 against the present applicant.

(2.) Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant submits that in the aforesaid offences, charge-sheet in respect of the main accused person namely Jai Dubey has already been filed, however against the present applicant, the investigation under 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code is still pending. The respondent No.3, who happens to be the father of victim presented an application before the concerning Superintendent of Police for recording the statement of prosecutrix again under Sec. 164 of the Cr.P.C. and thereafter, he appeared before the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Jabalpur and preferred an application that the statement of the victim under Sec. 164 may be recorded again, so that the present applicant should not be falsely implicated in the case. The aforesaid application was dismissed by the Special Judge on the ground that the arrest, investigation and other proceedings are yet to take place in respect of the present applicant. The applicant has nothing to do with the offence alleged, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the present applicant would be sheer abuse of process of law. It is further submitted that there is no bar in law to prevent the victim from moving an application for recording the statement of the prosecutrix under Sec. 164 of the Cr.P.C. for the second time or so on and in support this, reliance has been placed in the judgment dtd. 14/7/2022 passed in Writ Appeal No.602/2022 (Halke Bhai Gond Vs. The State of M.P.). Learned Senior Advocate has not pressed the application regarding quashment of FIR but the only prayer made by the applicant is to direct the Special Judge (POCSO), Jabalpur (M.P.) for permitting the respondent No.2/prosecutrix to record her statement again under Sec. 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code as the same is her legal right.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and 3 has supported the contentions made by the learned Senior Advocate for the applicant.