Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suo Moto In The Matter Of The State Of M.P. vs Complainant/Prosecutrix on 21 March, 2022
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Conc No.415/2022
Suo Moto In the Matter of The State of M.P. Vs
Complainant/Prosecutrix and Others
Gwalior, Dated:21/03/2022
Shri C.P. Singh, counsel for the State.
In compliance of order dated 10/02/2022, respondent-
Kunwarlal Yadav and his daughter "X" are produced in custody by Ms. Bhumika Dubey posted in Police Station Civil Lines District Datia.
It was submitted by respondents that after the receipt of notice issued by this Court, they had contacted the local counsel who instructed them not to appear before this Court. Similarly, when a bailable warrant of arrest was served on them, again the same counsel informed that they are not required to appear before the High Court and now they have been brought in custody. However, Kunwarlal Yadav did not disclose the name of local Counsel.
The question involved in the present case is that writ petition No.5723/2021 was filed by Kunwarlal Yadav for medical termination of pregnancy of his daughter on the ground that she is minor. The said writ petition was allowed by order dated 19/03/2021. Thereafter, it appears that the evidence of witnesses including Kunwarlal Yadav and the prosecutrix "X" were recorded and they took a somersault and prosecutrix "X" stated that nothing had happened with her and she is major. Thus, it is clear that the father of the prosecutrix "X" had obtained the order of medical termination of pregnancy of the prosecutrix "X" by making a false statement before this Court in writ 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Conc No.415/2022 Suo Moto In the Matter of The State of M.P. Vs Complainant/Prosecutrix and Others petition No.5723/2021.
During the course of arguments, the prosecutrix "X" stuck to her evidence which has been given by her in the trial and again she stated that nothing had happened with her and she was major, whereas in the DNA test report, the DNA profile of accused was found in the incriminating articles of the prosecutrix. When a specific question was put to the respondents as to whether they would like to engage any Counsel or not, then Kunwarlal Yadav, father of the prosecutrix, stated that in fact they were compelled by the local Counsel to give a false evidence before the Trial Court on the pretext that nothing would happen to them. Thus, according to the father of the prosecutrix "X", the prosecutrix was minor and W.P. No.5723/2021 was filed on the correct facts, whereas it is the stand of the prosecutrix "X" that nothing had happened with her.
Be that whatever it may.
Since the respondents are not in a position to engage any counsel, therefore, Ms. Kalpana Parmar, who has an experience of appearing in criminal matters and was present in the Court was requested to appear on behalf of the respondents. She graciously accepted the request made by the Court. However, she prayed for some time to go through the record.
IA No.1206/2022 has been filed for release of the contemnors on furnishing the personal bond.
3
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Conc No.415/2022 Suo Moto In the Matter of The State of M.P. Vs Complainant/Prosecutrix and Others The respondent Kunwarlal Yadav and prosecutrix "X" have been produced in custody in execution of the warrant of arrest issued by this Court on account of non-appearance in spite of service of summons as well as bailable warrants, therefore, it would not be proper to keep them in custody. Accordingly, IA No.1206/2022 is allowed. On furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac Only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, the respondents shall be released on bail.
The respondents are directed to file their reply. List this case on 28/3/2022. The respondents shall remain present before this Court on the next date of hearing. It is made clear that even if the respondents decide not to appear before this Court, even then this Court shall proceed to decide the matter finally after hearing counsel Ms. Kalpana Parmar and the State counsel.
The office is directed to reflect the name of Ms. Kalpana Parmar in the cause-list.
The respondents are sent back alongwith the police personnel who had brought them.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Arun* ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2022.03.21 18:11:22 +05'30'