IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code requires clear evidence of involvement for additional accused, and mere familial relation to the main accused is insufficient for prosecution.

ORDER :

This petition has been filed by the petitioners under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code against the order dated 11-3-2023, passed in S. T. No. 52/2021 by First Additional Sessions Judge, Jaora District Ratlam (M.P) wherein the two persons are facing trial under sections 376(2)(n), 450, 385, 506, 328, 411, 420, 120-B, 354-G, 201, 176 of Indian Penal Code and section 66-E of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

2. The allegations against the petitioners are that they happen to be the mother and father of the main accused Nishit @ Mayur and they were proceeded under section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code as the application was filed by the respondent/prosecution under section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code that the petitioners be also prosecuted in the said offence. The application was filed on 11-3-2023, when the matter was already fixed for cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, and on the same day, it was allowed and the charges were also framed, and the petitioners were asked to cross-examine the accused persons. Against the petitioners, charges under sections 385, 506 Part II read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code has been framed. Thus, the main allegation is of extortion.

3. Counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the aforesaid mode adopted by the trial Court runs contrary to the criminal jurisprudence as it was necessary for the trial Court to furnish the copy of the charge-sheet to the petitioners. It is also submitted that even assuming the statements of the witnesses to be correct, there is almost no chance that the prosecution would be able to prove the involvement of the present petitioners in the case as their names has not been mentioned by the prosecutrix in the FIR and also in her statement recorded under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

4. Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that prosecutrix’s statement under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code was recorded on 24-8-2021 and thereafter supplementary statement was recorded under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code dated on 1-11-2022 but she has not stated that the present petitioners were involved in any manner. In support of his contention, Shri Baheti has also relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Michael Machado and another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2000(2) Crimes 23 (SC).

5. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer and submitted that no case for interference is made out as the prosecutrix has clearly stated in her statement recorded under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code on 1-11-2022, that the present petitioners who are the parents of the main accused were also involved in the crime as they also knew about the prosecutrix was being raped and blackmailed by the main accused but they kept mum. It is also submitted that the prosecutrix, in her Court deposition dated 1-11-2022, has also stated that the parents of the main accused were also involved in the crime. Thus, it is submitted that the trial Court has rightly invoked the provisions of section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Yashodhan Singh vs. State of U. P., Criminal Appeal No. 2186/2023 [@ Special Leave Petition (Cri.) No. 6262/2023) decided on 18-7-2023 reported as (2023) 9 SCC 108.

6. Heard. From the perusal of the record, this Court finds it rather shocking that not only the entire procedure as prescribed under section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code was conducted on 11-3-2023, but even the petitioners were directed to appear on the same day, their bail applications were allowed on the same day, and charges were framed on the same day i.e. on 11-3-2023, and they were also directed to cross-examine the witnesses present. Although an option was given by the learned Judge of the