Geeta vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Dwarka Dhish Bansal, J

This petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS has been filed challenging the order dated 15/05/2026 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, District Morena in S.T. No. 205/2025, whereby, cross examination of the prosecution witness has been deferred till completion of chief examination of other prosecution witnesses.

Learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court to the impugned order submits that after completion of chief examination of the prosecution witness namely Virendra, an application was moved on behalf of the accused for deferral of the cross examination till completion of the chief examination of the other prosecution witnesses namely Kuldeep, Geeta, Mukesh & Sonu, which has been allowed by the court below without taking into consideration the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala vs. Rasheed reported in (2019) 13 SCC 297 as well as unreported judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Prateek @ Rahul Kushwaha vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (dated 31/03/2026 passed in Cr.R. No. 1096/2026). As such he submits that court below has committed an illegality in passing the impugned order, which is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rasheed (supra) as well as by this Court in the case of Prateek @ Rahul Kushwaha (supra). With these submissions, he prays for setting aside the impugned order.

On the other hand, learned State counsel does not dispute the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the impugned order.

Since the accused are not present before this Court and from the impugned order, it transpires that the court below has not taken into consideration the aforesaid legal position settled by the Apex Court as well as by this Court, in the aforesaid judgements, therefore, even prima facie, the impugned order appears to be unsustainable.

However, without commenting upon merits and demerits of the case, it is directed that trial Court shall decide the application under section 254 of BNSS filed by the accused afresh, strictly in accordance with the aforesaid judgments delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Rasheed (supra) as well as by this Court in the case of Prateek @ Rahul Kushwaha (supra) after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties.

With the aforesaid, this M.Cr.C. stands disposed of.