'General Tendency To Implicate Family Of Main Accused To Settle Personal Scores': MP High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Parents Of Rape Accused
Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently expressed its discontent regarding the general tendency wherein a victim of a crime tries to implicate all family members of the main accused to settle personal scores. The single-judge bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar opined that the court must look into the matter from the perspective of a reasonable man, though it is well aware of the fact that...
Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently expressed its discontent regarding the general tendency wherein a victim of a crime tries to implicate all family members of the main accused to settle personal scores.
The single-judge bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar opined that the court must look into the matter from the perspective of a reasonable man, though it is well aware of the fact that the 'F.I.R is not an encyclopedia'.
It is pertinent to note here that the names of the parents were not mentioned in the F.I.R. dated 29.07.2021 on the basis of survivor's written complaint. Additionally, Section 161 CrPC statement recorded on the same and the supplementary statement recorded on 24.08.2021 also did not disclose the names of the petitioner parents.
“….seen from the said perspective, it is difficult for this court to assume that when the crime is said to have been committed during the period of around two and a half years, while lodging the written complaint, the prosecutrix would miss the names of the petitioners who are none other than the parents of the main accused, and from whom no recovery has also been made”, the bench sitting at Indore noted.
Considering the other facts surrounding the issue, the court pointed out that the complaint itself was delayed by two and a half years. Similarly, the names of the parents were disclosed only much later, in the survivor's statement given under Section 164 on 01.11.2022 and in her deposition before the trial court on 24.8.2021. Due to the above reasons, the court felt it wasn't reasonable to prosecute the petitioners as the accused in the Sessions Trial before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Jaora.
“A perusal of the charge sheet also reveals that admittedly, no incriminating material has been seized from the present petitioners. In such facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners appear to have been arraigned as accused only because they happen to be the father and mother of the main accused”, Justice Abhyankar opined.
The prosecutrix, however, had not made any reference initially as to the involvement of the parents of the accused who allegedly threatened her and connived at the offence committed by the main accused.
“…Thus, the FIR was lodged on 29.7.2021, but the names of the present petitioners came into light for the first time on 30.07.2021, in the statement recorded by the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., and in her court deposition dated 01.11.2022 she has also stated that the present petitioners demanded money and jewellery from her…”, the bench further noted that the chargesheet reveals that there is only one unknown person included as the co-accused along with the main accused.
The primary allegation against the petitioners was that of extortion. The petitioners, who were the father and mother of the main accused, were proceeded against under Section 319 of Cr.P.C on the same day fixed for the cross examination of prosecution witnesses. On 11.03.2023, on the same day itself, S. 319 application was allowed, charges were framed under Sections 385, 506-II r/w Section 120-B of the IPC, and even their bail applications were allowed on the same day after the petitioners appeared. Thereafter, the petitioners were also asked to conduct cross examination the witnesses on the same day itself.
“From the perusal of the record, this Court finds it rather shocking that not only the entire procedure as prescribed under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. was conducted on 11.3.2023, but even the petitioners were directed to appear on the same day, their bail applications were allowed on the same day, and charges were framed on the same day i.e. on 11.3.2023, and they were also directed to cross examine the witnesses present”, the court noted.
The court accordingly allowed the petition and exonerated the parents of the main accused from the charges levelled against them. The court has also clarified that the trial court can proceed against other accused persons, including the son of the petitioners, in accordance with the law.
Advocate Jagdish Baheti appeared for the petitioners. Advocate Ajay Raj Gupta represented the respondents.
Case Title: Pradeep Bafna & Anr. v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Station House Officer & Anr.
Case No: Misc. Criminal Case No. 25409 of 2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 28