Meenu Jahan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 February, 2024

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Meenu Jahan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 February, 2024

Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti

                                                               1
                          IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                   BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
                                            ON THE 5 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                       MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 31363 of 2023

                    BETWEEN:-
                    MEENU JAHAN W/O SHRI MOHD. SHABIR @ GUDDU, AGED
                    ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE R/O H NO 44, GALI
                    N O 04 C- SECTOR BAG UMRAO DULLA AISHBAGH BHOPAL
                    (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                             .....APPLICANT
                    (BY SHRI ANKIT SAXENA - ADVOCATE)

                    AND
                    1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
                          STATION  TALAIYA DISTRICT  BHOPAL (MADHYA
                          PRADESH)

                    2.    VICTIM A D/O NOT MENTION NOT MENTION (MADHYA
                          PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENTS
                    (BY MS. SHANTI TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER)

                          T h is application coming on for admission this day, t h e cou rt passed the

                   following:
                                                           ORDER

This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashment of order dated 26/06/2023 passed by the 19th Sessions Judge & Special Judge, POCSO Act, Bhopal whereby right to cross-examination of the prosecutrix has been closed.

2. It is contended by the counsel that the applicant is being prosecuted for the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and other two co-accused under the provisions of POCSO Act.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 2/8/2024 12:37:32 PM 2

2. It is contended by the counsel that during course of trial, the victim was available before the Court for the purposes of cross-examination, however, as the counsel who was to cross examine the victim, was not available, therefore, the Court closed the right of the present applicant to cross-examine the prosecutrix. It is contended by the counsel that as the Senior Counsel who was to cross-examine the victim, was not available, therefore, a prayer for adjournment was sought but the Court has declined the said prayer while passing the order dated 26/06/2023.

3. Learned counsel while placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in MP No.5148/2023 (Raj Verma Vs. The State of M.P. and Ors.) and the judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Cr.MP (M) No.1395/2020 (Lovely Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh) submits that the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned order and submits that despite there being an opportunity, there was failure on the part of the petitioner to cross-examine the victim. Resultantly, the Court has not committed any error while passing the impugned order.

5. No other point is pressed or argued by the parties.

6. Heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

7. A perusal of the order impugned reflects that matter was fixed before the trial Court on 26/06/2023. The prosecutrix appeared for the purposes of cross- examination. Examination-in-chief was completed and thereafter, the present accused was given opportunity to cross-examine her, however, a prayer for adjournment was made by the junior counsel as the senior Counsel who was to cross-examine the prosecutrix was not available. It is apparent that the order-sheet does not reflect any other lapses in past, therefore, in the considered view of this Court, an opportunity ought to have been afforded to the present applicant to cross-examine the prosecutrix. Resultantly, the order impugned passed by the trial Court dated 26/06/2023 is set aside.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 2/8/2024 12:37:32 PM 3

8. The trial Court shall fix the date for the purposes of cross-examination of the prosecutrix subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- payable by the petitioner to the prosecutrix.

9. Upon payment of cost to the prosecutrix, the trial Court shall fix a date for the purposes of cross-examination of the prosecutrix and the petitioner shall be permitted to cross-examine the prosecutrix.

10. If there is failure on the part of the present applicant to cross-examine the prosecutrix on the date so fixed by the trial Court, the Court shall be free to proceed against the applicant in accordance with law.

11. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of.

(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE Astha Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 2/8/2024 12:37:32 PM

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court