[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Victim X vs Radheshyam on 4 February, 2026
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3553
1 MCRC-49826-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 4 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 49826 of 2025
VICTIM X
Versus
RADHESHYAM AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Virendra Thakur - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi, Advocate for respondents nos. 1
and 2.
Shri Harish Singh Rathore, Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
1] Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
2] This petition has been filed by the petitioner/victim under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C./Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the
order dated 26.08.2025 passed in S.C. Case No.09/2024 by the learned
Additional session Judge, Badnawar in which application U/s 348 of B.N.S.S
2023 was allowed by the learned special court and the re-examination of the
victim was allowed.
3] In brief facts of the case is that respondent no.1/Radheshyam and
respondent no.2/Sitaram are facing trial under section 363,376,376(2),366-
A,368/34 and U/s3,4,51 and 6 of POCSO Act in connection with rape of the
prosecutrix by one Lakhan, who happens to be the son of respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3553
2 MCRC-49826-2025
no.1/Radheshyam. It is alleged that when Lakhan and his friend Rahul took
the prosecutrix from her house, respondent nos. 1 and 2 were waiting
downstairs, and thereafter the prosecutrix was abducted.
4] The defence of respondents no.1 and 2 is that they were not present
when the incident took place, and in fact they were present in the village,
Sijawata, whereas the incident took place at Tahsil Badnawar, District Dhar,
which is around 25 Kms away from the place of marriage. Admittedly, the
prosecutrix has already been examined in this case, however, an application
under section 348 of the BNSS was filed for recalling of the prosecutrix on
the ground that due to some error on the part of advocate of the
respondents/accused, the prosecutrix could not be confronted with this fact
that the respondents no.1 and 2 were not present on the spot, and that she had
executed an affidavit in favour of Lakhan, and also informed the police about
it. The aforesaid application was allowed by the trial Court on the ground
that the defence taken by the respondents No. 1 and 2 is important for them,
and for that they require to produce a proper defence, and the aforesaid order
is under challenge before this Court.
5] Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecutrix was
examined on 14/5/2025, and she has also been cross-examined in detail by
the co-accused persons, but no such suggestion was given to her, and only to
delay the trial, the aforesaid application was filed, which has erroneously
been allowed by the trial Court.
6] Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 has submitted that it is true that
the aforesaid application was not filed along with the relevant documents;
however, the documents are filed in this petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3553
3 MCRC-49826-2025
7] Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 has also drawn the attention of
this Court to the photographs of respondent no.1 in the marriage on the date
of the incident, and also the affidavit of the prosecutrix dated 2.5.2024,
whereas the incident took place on 20.4.2024. Thus, no case for interference
is made out.
8] Counsel for the respondent/State has submitted that appropriate orders
may be passed.
9] Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the
documents filed on record, this Court finds that the learned judge of the trial
Court has rightly allowed the application, and has also observed that the
photographs and invitation card of marriage is also with the accused persons,
which in the considered opinion of this Court can still be produced at the
time of further cross examination of the prosecutrix, and since the defence
appears necessary to be confronted to the prosecutrix, the learned judge of
the trial Court has not committed any error, whether in law or jurisdiction;
accordingly, no case for interference is made out.
10] The learned judge of the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as
expeditiously as possible.
11] Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
das
