Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 234 (MP)

Pawan v. State of M. P.

2020-02-13

B.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2020
ORDER 1. This petition has been preferred under section 482 of CrPC on 29.6.2019 on behalf of Pawan Nayak. Kishan Nayak and Pawan Dubey were also included as petitioners in this petition but during argument on 10.2.2020, counsel for the petitioners withdrawn the petition on behalf of them. Hence, the arguments have been heard only in reference to Pawan s/o Nanhelal Nayak (petitioner No. 1). 2. The police Garhakota filed challan No. 285/2017 under sections 354, 354A (iv), 294 and 506/34 against eight accused persons including the petitioner. Upon the basis of aforesaid challan, J.M.F.C. Garhakota registered Criminal Case No. 142/2017 and framed the charges on 25.10.2017 against the petitioners under sections 354A(iv), 354/149 and 506 (ii) of IPC The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner by filing criminal revision No. 1/2018 but the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Rehli, District Sagar dismissed the aforesaid revision on 20.5.2019. 3. Petitioner challenged both orders i.e. 25.10.2017 passed by JMFC and the order dated 20.5.2019 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Rehli, District Sagar. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that no any evidence is available against the present petitioner to proceed further. The charges can be framed against the accused only in the condition when the sufficient evidence is available to proceed further. In this case, it is clear from the entire papers submitted along with the charge-sheet that there was no any sufficient evidence against the present petitioner. Therefore, the trial Court committed the mistake by framing the charges against the petitioner. Hence, both orders are liable to be quashed. 4. On the other side, the State strongly opposed the petition. It is submitted by the State that after investigation, challan has been filed before the trial Court. Sufficient evidence was collected during investigation. The trial Court framed the charges after taking into consideration the entire evidence of the case. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. It appears from the case that the prosecutrix submitted the written report to the police upon which Crime No. 308/2017 was registered. It is stated in the aforesaid report that the prosecutrix is the student of Class-XII. She went to attend the coaching at Garhakota. When she was returning in the vehicle of Muvin, accused Wasim came by the vehicle of Kishan Nayak in which Wasim and seven other boys were sitting. It is stated in the aforesaid report that the prosecutrix is the student of Class-XII. She went to attend the coaching at Garhakota. When she was returning in the vehicle of Muvin, accused Wasim came by the vehicle of Kishan Nayak in which Wasim and seven other boys were sitting. In this report, the prosecutrix mentioned the name of Vikky Tiwari, "Pawan Nayak", Pawan Mishra, Chhotu Patel, Pushpendra Sen and Chhotu Tiwari. The name of "Pawan Nayak" (present petitioner) is mentioned in the aforesaid report. 6. During investigation, the police recorded the statements of the prosecutrix under section 161 of CrPC In this statement, the name of present petitioner is not included. It is also stated in the written report that Nilesh was present at the time of incident and he is an eye-witness of the incident. In the statement of Nilesh Yadav, the name of the present petitioner is also not included. 7. The prosecutrix was also examined under section 164 of CrPC on 23.6.2017 by ACJM Rehli, District Sagar. In this statement, the name of the present petitioner is not included but it is mentioned that his son Kishan Nayak was involved in the incident. The words mentioned by the prosecutrix are "Pawan Nayak ka ladka Kishan Nayak". 8. Therefore, it appears from the entire evidence that the name of the present petitioner was included in the written FIR but neither his name is mentioned in the statement under section 161 of CrPC nor in the statement under section 164 of CrPC Even, the sole eye-witness has not included the name of the present petitioner in his statement. The prosecutrix said in her statement under section 164 of CrPC that "son of the present petitioner" was involved in the incident. 9. The present petitioner is the father of petitioner No. 2 Kishan. Looking to the nature of evidence, prima facie, it can be said that the father and son both cannot be involved in the aforesaid type of crime related to outrage of modesty of a girl. An inference can be drawn that the prosecutrix was intended to mention the name of Kishan Nayak with the name of his father but due to some clerical mistake, the name of both father and son have been mentioned separately. 10. Therefore, it appears that no evidence has been found after investigation of the case against present petitioner Pawan Nayak. 11. 10. Therefore, it appears that no evidence has been found after investigation of the case against present petitioner Pawan Nayak. 11. Hence, the trial Court committed the mistake by framing the charges against the present petitioner. 12. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the charges framed against the present petitioner are hereby quashed. Petitioner is discharged from the case. His bail bonds are also discharged.