Dhiraj Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Dhiraj vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Feb 08, 2013

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1039923

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1039923
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Feb 08, 2013
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dhiraj

Advocate Shri. Ashok Chakravarty

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

.....no.33/12 whereby the charge of section 366,376 and 506-b of the ipc and section 3(2)(5) of the sc/st (prevention of atrocities) act 1989 ( in short the act) has been framed against the applicant no.1 while the charge of section 366/34 of ipc and section 3(2)(5) of the act has been framed applicant no.2. applicants counsel while arguing the case on admission has referred the fir as well as the interrogatory statements of the prosecutrix so also of other witnesses and, in such premises argued that on taking into consideration such averments as accepted in its entirety even then the ingredients of the offence of section 3(2)(5) of the act are not made out even for framing such charge against any of the applicants, on which, on asking the counsel whether such thing was argued before the trial court at the time of making the arguments on the charge, on which, he submits that probably the local lawyer had not pointed out the same and such thing was not considered by such court. on such submission again it was asked from the counsel whether he wants to file appropriate application under section 216 of the cr.p.c for modification of the charge before the trial court or he is ready to argue the matter here to adjudicate such question, on which, the counsel seeks permission to withdraw this revision at this stage with liberty to file the appropriate application under section 216 of the cr.p.c for modification of the aforesaid charge of the act before the trial court with a prayer to examine the matter keeping in view the provision of section 3(1)(xi) and (xii) of the act. the panel lawyer did not have any objection in dismissing this revision by extending the aforesaid liberty. on consideration, by allowing the prayer of the applicants counsel, this revision is hereby dismissed and he is extended the liberty to file the appropriate application under section 216 of the cr.p.c before the trial court for modification of the charge as prayed by him. it is made clear that.....

Full Judgment

Cr.R.No.1700 o”

08. 02.13 Shri Ashok Chakravarty, counsel for the applicants.

Shri Alok Tapikar, PL for the respondent/State Panel Lawyer submits that he is under receipt of the case diary.

Applicants/accused have preferred this revision being aggrieved by the order dated 29.6.12 passed by the Special Judge (Constituted under the SC/ST Act) Chhindwara in Special Case No.33/12 whereby the charge of section 366,376 and 506-B of the IPC and section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 ( in short the Act) has been framed against the applicant No.1 while the charge of section 366/34 of IPC and section 3(2)(5) of the Act has been framed applicant No.2.

Applicants counsel while arguing the case on admission has referred the FIR as well as the interrogatory statements of the prosecutrix so also of other witnesses and, in such premises argued that on taking into consideration such averments as accepted in its entirety even then the ingredients of the offence of section 3(2)(5) of the Act are not made out even for framing such charge against any of the applicants, on which, on asking the counsel whether such thing was argued before the trial court at the time of making the arguments on the charge, on which, he submits that probably the local lawyer had not pointed out the same and such thing was not considered by such court.

On such submission again it was asked from the counsel whether he wants to file appropriate application under section 216 of the Cr.P.C for modification of the charge before the trial court or he is ready to argue the matter here to adjudicate such question, on which, the counsel seeks permission to withdraw this revision at this stage with liberty to file the appropriate application under section 216 of the Cr.P.C for modification of the aforesaid charge of the Act before the trial court with a prayer to examine the matter keeping in view the provision of section 3(1)(xi) and (xii) of the Act.

The Panel lawyer did not have any objection in dismissing this revision by extending the aforesaid liberty.

On consideration, by allowing the prayer of the applicants counsel, this revision is hereby dismissed and he is extended the liberty to file the appropriate application under section 216 of the Cr.P.C before the trial court for modification of the charge as prayed by him.

It is made clear that subject to any order of the trial court on such application, on arising the occasion, the applicants shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum with appropriate proceedings.

(U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Dhiraj vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Same Subject Criminal