IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR
G.S. Ahluwalia, J.
Sonu Parihar Alias Nathu – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. – Respondents
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.7380 of 2022
Decided On : 10-02-2022
Contempt of Court - False Averments - The court issued a show cause notice to the prosecutrix and her father for filing a writ petition with incorrect averments, resulting in the termination of an unborn baby. The court dismissed the bail application as withdrawn and directed the office to communicate the order to the Trial Court and the Superintendent of Police, Datia.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. after the first application was dismissed. The applicant was arrested in connection with various offenses under IPC and POCSO Act. The prosecutrix, who was initially claimed to be a minor and pregnant, later turned hostile and claimed to be major with no offense committed against her.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecutrix and her father had filed a writ petition with incorrect averments, resulting in the termination of an unborn baby. The court issued a show cause notice for contempt of court and dismissed the bail application as withdrawn.
Issues: The issues involved the conflicting claims regarding the age and victimization of the prosecutrix, the filing of a writ petition with incorrect averments, and the subsequent termination of pregnancy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the conflicting statements of the prosecutrix, the father's claim regarding the prosecutrix's age, and the consequences of filing a writ petition with incorrect averments leading to the termination of pregnancy.
Final Decision: The bail application was dismissed as withdrawn, and a show cause notice for contempt of court was issued to the prosecutrix and her father. The office was directed to communicate the order to the Trial Court and the Superintendent of Police, Datia.
JUDGMENT
G.S. ahluwalia, J. - This second application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of bail. Previous application was dismissed by order dated 21.09.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.38174/2021.
The applicant has been arrested on 08.02.2021 in connection with Crime No.25/2021 registered at Police Station Civil Line Distt. Datia for offence under Sections 363, 343, 376, 376 (2) (n), 120-B, 376 (d), 109, 366 of IPC and 5L/6, 5/17 of POCSO act.
It is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant that although this Court in first bail application which was decided on 21.09.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.38174/2021 has taken note of the DNa test report but the prosecutrix has infact turned hostile. She has claimed that she was major and nothing was done and no offence was committed with her. It is further submitted that even the father of the prosecutrix has specifically claimed that the date of birth was not disclosed by him at the time of the admission of prosecutrix in school. Therefore, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove that the prosecutrix was minor on the date of incident and as the prosecutrix in school has turned hostile, at present there is no substantive evidence against the applicant.
Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant.
The case in hand depicts very shocking state of affairs. The father of the prosecutrix had filed W.P. No.5723/2021 for medical termination of pregnancy of respondent no. 2 on the allegations that she is minor aged about 16 years and she was subjected to rape and, as a result, she became pregnant and the pregnancy of the prosecutrix will not be in the interest of her justice. This Court while deciding W.P. No.5723/2021 had requisitioned the case diary and statement was made by Shri Deepak Khot, Counsel for the State that the date of birth of prosecutrix as per school record is 02.04.2004, therefore, she is minor and as she was raped by the applicant, therefore, she has become pregnant.
Considering the minority, allegation as well as report submitted by the Medical Board which was constituted in compliance of order dated 10.03.2021 passed in W.P. No. 5723/2021, this Court permitted the medical termination of pregnancy. Now the prosecutrix has claimed that she is major and no offence was committed by the applicant. Thus, it is clear that either the prosecutrix has not narrated the truth before the Trial Court or the prosecutrix and her father has filed a writ petition on false averment that the prosecutrix was minor and she got pregnant from the applicant.
So far as the prosecution of prosecutrix and her father for giving false evidence before the Trial Court is concerned, it is yet to be decided by the Trial Court. Therefore, it is left to the discretion of the Trial Court. However in view of the evidence given by the prosecutrix and her father, it is clear that they had filed W.P. No.5723/2021 on incorrect averments, as a result, one unborn baby was killed. This conduct of the prosecutrix and her father cannot be tolerated.
Accordingly, issue show cause notice to the prosecutrix and her father Kunwarlal Yadav to show cause as to why they should not be punished for having committed contempt of Court by filing W.P. No. 5723/2021 on false avertments. Office is directed to register a separate case for Contempt of Court. The notice be served through Superintendent of Police, Datia.
List this Contempt Case on 21st of February, 2022.
So far as the merits of the case is concerned, Counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application.
It is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Office is directed to immediately send a copy of this order to Principal District and Sessions Judge, Datia for communicating the same to the Trial Court for necessary information.
Let a copy of this order be given to the State Counsel for communicating the same to Superintendent of Police, Datia for necessary information and compliance.
AI
Contempt of court can be invoked for filing false averments in a writ petition, leading to serious consequences such as the termination of pregnancy.
The court considered the minor status of the prosecutrix and her voluntary actions in denying bail to the applicant.
Grant of bail based on similarity of the case with a previously granted bail to a co-accused and without commenting on the merits of the case.
The court has the discretion to grant bail based on the material presented and overall consideration of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case.
The court may grant bail based on the duration of custody and the expected trial duration, without commenting on the merits of the case.
An accused is entitled to be released on bail if he has been in detention for a considerable period, the charge sheet has been filed, and the trial would take considerable time to conclude.
The court considered the consent of the prosecutrix and her father, the solemnization of marriage between the applicant and the prosecutrix, and the possibility of delay in the conclusion of the tria....
Bail – Under POCSO Act, age of victim is decisive factor – If victim is below 18 years of age, law presumes that she is incapable of giving valid consent.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.