Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
Rahul Badgaiya – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application against ongoing criminal process. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. statements recorded cannot be contradicted without sufficient reason. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. court dismisses the petition. (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT :
Pramod Kumar Agrawal, J.
1. The present application under S.482 of CrPC is being preferred against registration of the offences under S.363, S.366, S.376(2) (n), 376, 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with S.3,4,5,6 of Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 against the present applicant.
2. Learned Senior Advocate for the applicant submits that in the aforesaid offences, charge - sheet in respect of the main accused person namely Jai Dubey has already been filed, however against the present applicant, the investigation under 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code is still pending. The respondent No. 3, who happens to be the father of victim presented an application before the concerning Superintendent of Police for recording the statement of prosecutrix again under S.164 of the CrPC and thereafter, he appeared before the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Jabalpur and preferred an application that the statement of the victim under S.164 may be recorded again,
A victim's statement under Section 164 of the CrPC cannot be recorded without the investigating agency's sponsorship to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.
A Magistrate has no obligation to record a witness’s statement under S.164 CrPC unless prompted by the investigating officer.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the right of the victim to have her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. without the intervention of the prosecution agency, as per the ame....
The court emphasized the need for necessary checks and balances in recording statements under section 164 of Cr.P.C. and discouraged the misuse of the law.
There is nothing in law to prevent I.O. from moving application for recording of statement of witness/victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. for the second time or so on.
The court emphasized that the trial court should consider the statement of the petitioner No. 1 and conclude whether the offences have been committed or not.
The accused has the right to call a defense witness and have a full opportunity to defend himself, including the recording of the statement of a Judicial Magistrate under section 164 of the Code of C....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
