Sahiba Bee vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 May, 2023

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Sahiba Bee vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 May, 2023

Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke

                                 1
 IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT GWALIOR
                         BEFORE
       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                      ON THE 18 th OF MAY, 2023
                  WRIT PETITION No. 11831 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
SAHIBA BEE D/O SHRI IQBAL KHA, AGED ABOUT 20
YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIVATE SERVICE R/O KURWAI
DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                              .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRASHANT SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE
      POLICE STATION THROUGH POLICE STATION
      KURWAI, VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.    SHAUKAT   ULLAH    HASHMI   S/O    SHRI
      AZMATULLAH HASHMI, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
      KAZI MOHALLA KURWAI DISTRICT VIDISHA
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                            .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SHIRAJ QURAISHI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

      This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the

following:
                                  ORDER

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 3.4.2023, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 319 and 301 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are that the marriage (Nikah) of minor girl was conducted by the respondent no.2 with one Bharuk alias Qamar Khan. At the 2 time of marriage (Nikah) the girl was only 15 years old and the case under section 376, 323, 506, 34 of IPC and section 3/4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act was registered against the accused persons, but the respondent no.2 who has read the Nikah was not made a co-accused and by taking advantage of political pressure the respondent no.2 managed to get his name removed from the case, however, there are allegation against the respondent no.2 that he has forged documents to solemnized the Nikah.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a minor girl was forcefully married with Qamar Khan and the respondent no.2 is also involved in the offence as he read the Nikah, and therefore, the application under section 319 of Cr.P.C. was filed in which it has been stated that the respondent no.2 who read Nikah was aware of the fact that he is reading Nikah of minor and though his name was duly reflected in the FIR he was not arrayed as an accused and was left out. Thus, it was prayed for impleading respondent no.2 as an accused before the Trial Court. The said application was dismissed by the impugned order dated 3.4.2023 by the learned Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same the present petition is being filed.

Office has also raised an objection as regards maintainability of this writ petition as there is remedy to file M.Cr.C. under section 482 of Cr.P.C. or Criminal Revision.

Per contra learned Government Advocate supports the order dated 3.4.2023 passed by the learned Trial Court and prays for rejection of the writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

On perusal of the order dated 3.4.2023 passed by the learned Trial Court it is clear that the charge-sheet has been filed on 4.10.2018 and the application 3 under section 319 and 301 (2) of the Cr.P.C. has been filed with inordinate delay and no reasonable explanation has been given by the petitioner in the said application. The evidence of the prosecturix has also been recorded wherefrom it could not be gathered or no material had surfaced against Respondent no.2, which would compel this Court to interfere with the reasoning assigned by the Trial Court, while rejecting the application, and therefore, the reasoning of the Trial Court that said application has been filed only with an intention to cause unnecessary delay in the case cannot be said to be perverse. That apart from the bare reading of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below has applied its mind and only after due deliberation on to the objections has passed the impugned order. Thus, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

Accordingly, the petition being sans merits and is hereby dismissed. This Court since had found no substance in the petition had not dealt upon the objections raised by the office regarding maintainability of Writ Petition.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) V. JUDGE Pawar ASHISH Digitally signed by ASHISH PAWAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=022bf22fa73f89c6f6d933de1146a290a 49b3c94df18221974589b5a02e0fc6b, PAWAR pseudonym=FF3392C76BA2BA90DA179B68AB DF35708A13E2D2, serialNumber=45B88E29CF4FECAAA753C8CA87 40AD0DA9C3E498ADE24A066F820E24846008A E, cn=ASHISH PAWAR Date: 2023.05.19 14:01:32 +05'30'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court