The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that FIR is not an encyclopedia, however, considering the fact that there is a general tendency of a victim of crime to implicate all the family members of the main accused in order to settle the personal score, this Court is also required to look into the matter from the perspective of a reasonable man, as to how he would have behaved or acted in the given circumstances, and thus, seen from the said perspective, it is difficult for this court to assume that when the crime is said to have committed during the period of around two and a half years, while lodging the written complaint, the proseutrix would miss the names of the petitioners who are none other than the parents of the main accused, and from whom no recovery has also been made.
Brief Facts:
The present petition has been filed to challenge the order passed in relation to matter wherein two persons are facing trial under Sections 376(2) (n), 450, 385, 506, 328, 411, 420, 120-B, 354 (G), 201, 176 of IPC and Section 66-E of the Information & Technology Act, 2000.
The Petitioners are alleged to be parents of the main accused and were proceeded as the application was filed by the Respondent/Prosecution under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. that the petitioners be also prosecuted in the said offence.
Contentions of the Petitioners:
It was contended that there was no chance that the prosecution would be able to prove the involvement of the present petitioners in the case as their names were not mentioned by the prosecutrix in the FIR and also in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.
Contentions of the Respondent/State:
It was argued that present petitioners 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 shut.
Observations of the Court:
It was observed that neither in the written complaint nor in the FIR, there was any reference of the present petitioners as the persons who have also threatened the prosecutrix and connived at the offence committed by their son.
It was noted, that as it appeared, the petitioners were arraigned as accused only because they happen to be the father and mother of the main accused.
It was ruled that FIR is not an encyclopedia, however, considering the fact that there is a general tendency of a victim of crime to implicate all the family members of the main accused in order to settle the personal score, this Court is also required to look into the matter from the perspective of a reasonable man, as to how he would have behaved or acted in the given circumstances, and thus, seen from the said perspective, it is difficult for this court to assume that when the crime is said to have committed during the period of around two and a half years, while lodging the written complaint, the proseutrix would miss the names of the petitioners who are none other than the parents of the main accused, and from whom no recovery has also been made.
The decision of the Court:
Based on the aforementioned reasoning, the Court accordingly allowed the petition.
Case Title: Pradeep Bafna & Anr. v. State & Anr.
Case No.: MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 25409 of 2023
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subodh Abhyankar
Advocate for Petitioners: Adv. Shri Jagdish Baheti
Advocate for Respondents: Adv. Shri Ajay Raj Gupta
Read More @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
