GOVERDHAN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant/accused-Goverdhan has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order dated 12/06/2018, passed by Special Judge [SC/ST (PA) Act], Indore in Special Sessions Trial No.67/2018, whereby the charges under Section 368 , 376(2)(n) and 370 of IPC, 1860 read with Sections 3(2)(v) , 3(2)(v)(a) of The Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) 1989, have been framed against him.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 11/06/2018, complainant-Devkaran lodged a missing person report regarding his two daughters aged about 22 and 17 years, residing at Kamal Charmkar's house on rent situated at Shivnagar, Musakedi, Indore. It is further alleged that the complainant along with his son-in-law searched the girls but they were not traced. Thereafter complainant got a phone call from his son-in-law that one Aslam, residing in the said locality has enticed away both the daughters of the complainant. During investigation elder daughter was recovered from the present applicant and younger daughter was recovered from one Bablu. The present applicant was arrested and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed. On 12/06/2018, the trial Court framed aforementioned charges against the applicant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant neither abducted the prosecutrix nor he provided shelter to her knowing the fact that she has been abducted by co-accused persons. It is further submitted that the applicant is physically handicapped and working as guest faculty in the school. Due to disability, the applicant could not get married, therefore, the prosecutrix came to his house with her family members showing that she is not married and she wanted to marry the applicant. The applicant had given her some money for the expenses of marriage and he has not paid any amount for purchasing the prosecutrix. He solemnized marriage with prosecutrix according to Hindu customs and rituals. The applicant himself is a victim of cheating and forgery committed by the prosecutrix and other persons, who came with her. In these circumstances, no offence is made out against the applicant, however, the trial Court has committed error in framing charges against the applicant for offences punishable under Sections 368 , 376(2)(n) and 370 of IPC, 1860 read with Sections 3(2)(v) , 3(2)(v)(a) of The Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) 1989.