Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prosecutrix vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 February, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6871
1 MCRC-22891-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22891 of 2024
PROSECUTRIX
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Abhishek Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms Anjali Gyanani Ga appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
Shri Ayush Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent [R-2].
Reserved on : 23.2.2026
Pronounced on : 18/3/2026
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Milind Ramesh Phadke, Judge pronounced the following:
ORDER
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order dated 01.05.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Gwalior, District Gwalior (M.P.) in SC ATR No. 41/2020. By the said order, the learned Trial Court allowed the application filed by the accused/respondent No. 2 seeking FSL verification of the voice samples of prosecutrix/accused with a pen drive Ex.A.1.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to settled principles of law as the learned Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 18-03-2026 18:52:22 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6871 2 MCRC-22891-2024 Trial Court has failed to appreciate the facts and the nature of the case in its proper perspective. Learned counsel further submits that the FIR was registered for serious offences under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST Act and only after due investigation, the police had filed a charge-sheet, and thereafter the trial had commenced and the statement of the prosecutrix has also been recorded. It is submitted that at this advanced stage of trial, the application filed by the accused seeking investigation of alleged call recordings is nothing but an attempt to delay the proceedings and prolong the trial. Learned counsel submits that the application filed by the accused is vague and lacks material particulars, as it does not specify the date, time, or authenticity of the alleged call recordings. In the absence of such basic details, the application ought not to have been entertained by the learned Trial Court. It is further submitted that directing the voice sampling of the prosecutrix without sufficient basis amounts to violation of her rights and dignity and is not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel submits that the prosecution has already completed its investigation, and the charge-sheet has been filed after due consideration of all material evidence and permitting further investigation at this stage without any strong justification is unwarranted. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has committed a jurisdictional error in allowing the application without properly considering whether such investigation was necessary or relevant for the just decision of the case. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order is against the principles of fair trial, as it would unnecessarily prolong the proceedings and Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 18-03-2026 18:52:22 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6871 3 MCRC-22891-2024 causes prejudice to the prosecutrix and prayed that the impugned order dated 01.05.2024 deserves to be set aside, and the application filed by respondent No. 2/accused seeking investigation of call recordings and voice sampling of the prosecutrix to be dismissed.
3. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent/State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 opposes the present petition and submits that the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned order after due application of mind and in accordance with law.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 further submits that the order permitting investigation of call recordings and voice sampling has been passed to ensure a fair and complete adjudication of the case. Learned counsel submits that the right to a fair trial includes the right of the accused to present relevant evidence in his defence. The call recordings sought to be examined are material for proper adjudication of the matter, and the Trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion in allowing the application. It is further submitted that merely because the trial has commenced or the statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded, it does not bar the Court from allowing further investigation or collection of relevant evidence if it is necessary for arriving at the truth. Learned counsel submits that the contention of the petitioner regarding delay or lack of particulars in the application is not sufficient to reject the request, as the authenticity and relevance of such evidence can only be tested during trial. It is also Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 18-03-2026 18:52:22 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6871 4 MCRC-22891-2024 submitted that no prejudice is caused to the prosecutrix by the impugned order, as the process of voice sampling and examination of call recordings is part of a lawful procedure aimed at discovering the truth. Learned counsel further submits that the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly, and the present case does not disclose any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned order.
5. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The contention of the petitioner that the application filed by the accused was vague and intended to delay the trial in the present circumstances cannot be accepted at this stage. The learned Trial Court has exercised its discretion in allowing the application for investigation of call recordings and voice sampling with the object of ensuring a fair and complete adjudication of the case.
7. It is well settled that the right to a fair trial includes the right of the accused to lead evidence in his defence. The material sought to be examined by the accused cannot be rejected at the threshold merely on the ground that the trial has commenced or that the statement of the prosecutrix has already been recorded.
8. The objections raised by the petitioner regarding lack of particulars, delay, or alleged prejudice are matters which can be considered during the course of trial. The evidentiary value, authenticity, and relevance of the call recordings can be tested during trial and cannot be a ground for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court further finds that no prejudice is caused to the prosecutrix by permitting such investigation, as the same is Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 18-03-2026 18:52:22 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:6871 5 MCRC-22891-2024 part of a lawful process aimed at discovering the truth.
9. The inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where there is a clear abuse of process or patent illegality. In the present case, no such circumstance is made out.
10. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned order after due application of mind and in accordance with law.
11. The petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE (aspr) Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR Signing time: 18-03-2026 18:52:22