Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

These Criminal Revisions are filed being aggrieved of order dated 23.09.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), 2012/Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, Damoh (M.P.), in SC No.27/23 (on behalf of Ajay Lall S/o late Vijay Lall and others and 8 others, Shainit(Shanti) Lall, Sheela Lall W/o Shri Raj Kumar David Lall and Rajkamal David Lall, on the ground that charges have been framed by the learned Trial Judge under the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC for short), Section 186 of IPC, Section 42 and 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2015 for short), so also under Section 3/5 of M.P. Dharmik Swantrata Adhiniyam, 2021, without there being any basis for framing of said charges.

3. It is submitted that there is no concept of vicarious liability under criminal jurisprudence. It is submitted that for the acts of MICS, Ajay Lal cannot be held responsible. It is further submitted that no charge under Section 370 I.P.C. is made out against Ajay Lall on account of there being no allegation of trafficking against Ajay Lall in the chargesheet in his capacity as Director of Aadhar Shila. It is submitted that Ajay Lall had resigned from MICS, thus, he cannot be held responsible for the acts of MICS.

27. It is further pointed out that if a cognizable offence is committed, then police is bound to investigate it on receiving such information and in the present case, since the offences under Sections 370 and 186 are cognizable offences, the police was authorized to investigate the same on receiving a complaint from Mr. Priyank Kanoongo or anybody else.

28. Shri Prashant Singh, learned Advocate General for the State, further submits that there is something more than what meets the eyes. It is submitted that Shri Priyank Kanoongo was called to record his statement. This notice was under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. Thereafter, there is a note to the effect that said information was already given to the Superintendent of Police, yet a supplementary statement was recorded. It is submitted that the purpose of the Central India Christian Mission is to promote Christianity, to assist individuals, groups and churches which consistently agree with and subscribe to the doctrine of the New Testament, in their efforts to reach and promote Christianity. It is submitted that name of Dr. Ajay Lall is mentioned as one of the members of the governing body and, therefore, their submission that Ajay Lall had resigned, is not made out from record.

41. Shri Prashant Singh, learned Advocate General, further submits that the conduct of petitioners does constitute an offence under Section 370(1) of the IPC, inasmuch as, the petitioners are guilty of practicing fraud and adoption by abuse of power. It is submitted that it is not unusual that all the children who were given in adoption, return back to the institution hostel one or the other pretext. Similarly, charge under Section 186 IPC is also made out, inasmuch as, Chairman of CPCR was obstructed from discharging his public function by closing the doors of the accommodation from inspection in the hands of the Chairman of CPCR along with other State member.