##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2710

1 CRA-10564-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT INDORE

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH

th

ON THE 28 OF JANUARY, 2026

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 10564 of 2025

PREET @ PRATEEK MUCCHAL AND OTHERS

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Mehul Shukla - Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Rahul Solanki - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

Shri Saily Purandare - Advocate for the respondent (COMP).

Heard on:- 23.01.2026.

Posted on:- 28.01.2026.

.........................................................................................................................................

JUDGMENT

This criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Schedule

Caste/Schedule Tribe (P.O.A), 1989 is preferred being aggrieved by the

order dated 25.06.2025 passed in Special Case No.62/2023 by XXI

Additional Sessions Judge, Indore (Special Judge under POCSO Act, 2012

Indore) whereby the opportunity of further cross-examination of child/victim

(PW-1) has been forfeited.

2. Facts in brief are that appellants are facing trial in connection with

charges under Sections 354-A, 354-D, 323, 506 (Part-II), 294 r/w s.34 of

IPC, Sections 11(i), Section 12/11(ii) of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 3(1)

(w)(ii), 3(2)(Va), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (P.O.A), 1989 for committing alleged act

towards child/victim (PW-1) aged below 16 years and studying in 10th

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: AKANKSHA

LAHORIYA

Signing time: 28-01-2026

17:59:03

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2710

2 CRA-10564-2025

standard belonging to Schedule Caste community whereas appellants does

not belong to Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe community and regarding

which Crime No.1563/2022 was registered at Police Station, Banganga,

Indore.

3. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants on the

ground that impugned order dated 25.06.2025 is apparently illegal and

unjust. Perusing records of the special case and comments of the Presiding

Officer, the application for transfer of the criminal case has been allowed by

the Sessions Judge, Indore. Appellants have not deliberately sought

adjournment to cause delay. Right to cross-examination is fundamental right

of the appellants and denying the same will deprive them from valuable right

to defend themselves. The present case is only 03 years old and in a 03 years

old case the Presiding Officer has applied hyper technical view in the present

case. The cross-examination of the witnesses is essential for fair

determination of guilt/innocence of the appellants.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the appeal.

5. Counsel for the respondent/complainant has also opposed the

appeal.

Heard and perused the record.

6. The examination-in-chief of the child/victim (PW-1) was recorded

on 25.07.2023 but the cross-examination was not conducted and adjournment

was sought on the ground that Senior Counsel is not available. Trial Court

adjourned the cross-examination. Child/victim again was present on

28.08.2024 with her mother but child/victim (PW-1) was not cross-examined

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: AKANKSHA

LAHORIYA

Signing time: 28-01-2026

17:59:03

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2710

3 CRA-10564-2025

on the ground that Senior Counsel is not available. The cross-examination

was adjourned. Again child/victim (PW-1) remained present on 12.09.2024

with her mother and brother but the child/victim was not cross-examined on

the ground that son and husband of the counsel is not in good health.

7. On 17.02.2025 child/victim (PW-1) was present and the cross-

examination of the child/victim was conducted in pre-lunch & post lunch

sessions comprising para 05 to 17. Thereafter counsel demanded further

adjournment submitting that counsel is tired due to journey from Prayagraj.

Trial Court made a request for continuing the cross-examination referring

that earlier on several occasions the cross-examination has been adjourned.

But counsel did not continued further cross-examination and trial Court

forfeited the right to furt