Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Yogesh Rani vs State Of Haryana And Others on 19 September, 2013
Author: Ram Chand Gupta
Bench: Ram Chand Gupta
CRM No.M-28437 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-28437 of 2013(O&M)
Date of Decision: September 19, 2013.
Smt. Yogesh Rani
..........PETITIONER(s).
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
..........RESPONDENT(s).
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate
for the petitioner (s).
*******
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
CRM No.40747 of 2013
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
CRM No.40748 of 2013Requests for placing on record copy of challan Annexure P-7 and copy of MLR Annexure P-8. The same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.
Criminal misc. application stands disposed of.
CRM M-28437 of 2013 The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Mehta Sachin 2013.09.24 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-28437 of 2013 -2- Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') for quashing of order dated 13.06.2013 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Karnal and order dated 23.08.2013 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Sessions Judge, Karnal vide which application filed by present petitioner-complainant under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for leading additional evidence was dismissed by learned trial Court and the revision filed against the said order was also dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Karnal.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record including both the orders passed by learned Courts below.
Briefly stated, FIR No.774 dated18.12.2008 under Sections 498-A, 323, 406 and 506 of Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station City Karnal against respondents namely Harvinder Singh, Kanta Rani, Devender Singh and Nitu. Respondents were charge-sheeted on 15.12.2009 after report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecution against them. Case remained pending for prosecution evidence for a period of about three years. Sufficient opportunities were granted to the prosecution to conclude the evidence. All the witnesses were examined as per the list of witnesses except one formal witness and despite several opportunities, the presence of that witness could not be procured and hence, evidence of prosecution was closed by Court order dated 23.07.2012. Thereafter, statements of accused under Section 313 Mehta Sachin 2013.09.24 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-28437 of 2013 -3- Cr.P.C. were recorded by the trial Court. Case was fixed for defence evidence of accused-respondents for 24.09.2012 and again for 28.08.2012 and then for 08.09.2012 when the present application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved by present petitioner-complainant which was dismissed by learned trial Court vide impugned order. Revision against the said order was also dismissed by learned Sessions Judge.
It has been mentioned by both the Courts below in the impugned order that an application running into 21 pages was moved on behalf of the petitioner-complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
mentioning several documents required to be produced and also mentioned that eight witnesses were to be examined. The witnesses were not mentioned in the list of witnesses attached with the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The documents were also not part of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Court of Sessions has dealt with relevancy of each and every document and came to the conclusion that the same were having no relevance for deciding the present litigation. The plea for producing some of the documents has been declined as the same were not part of the challan by observing as under:-
"7. Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure is manifestly in two parts, words used in the first part is 'may' and in second part 'shall'. First part provides a discretionary power to a criminal court. It enables the court at any stage of any enquiry, trial or proceeding to summon any one as a witness or to examine any person present in Mehta Sachin 2013.09.24 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-28437 of 2013 -4- court or to recall and re-examine any person whose evidence has already been recorded. Second part is mandatory. It compels the court to exercise the power of the new evidence appears to the court essential to take a just decision of the case. A duty is cast upon the court to arrive at the truth by lawful means. But before arriving at the just conclusion as to whether the documents sought to be produced and proved on record are essential for just decision of the case, each document shall require to be examined. Thus, each document is discussed separately.
(i) Copy of cancellation report filed by the police in case FIR No.338 dated 28.5.2009 under sections 452, 315, 506, 323 IPC, police station city Karnal.
This cancellation report has no concern with the pending trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that by proving this cancellation report, the petitioner wants to prove the conduct of the accused that a false case was got registered.
Production of this cancellation report is not necessary for just decision of the case. It is not a material document as the conduct of the accused to get the case registered has no relevance with regard to the allegations of the prosecution levelled in the case in which the accused/respondents are facing the trial. Further more, this cancellation report has not been accepted by the learned Judicial Mehta Sachin 2013.09.24 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-28437 of 2013 -5- Magistrate and on the other hand on the protest petition, a process has been issued by the court to face trial and the said order has been challenged by the accused in that case and the matter is subjudice before the Hon'ble High Court. Conduct of the accused subsequent to the registration of the case is not relevant, subsequent conduct may be relevant in a divorce petition but in the criminal case, subsequent conduct is not relevant as the complainant has to establish cruelty before the date of registration of the case.
(ii) Copies of orders dated 5.7.2010 and 26.4.2012 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Crl. Misc. No.M-17574 of 2010.
Both these orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court are not relevant with regard to the allegations of the prosecution in the pending trial because in the said case proceedings of FIR No.338 dated 28.5.2009 were challenged and even the matter is still subjudice before the Hon'ble High Court. Otherwise, copy of the order of the Hon'ble High Court can be brought to the notice of the court at the time of arguments and the court can take judicial notice of the same.
(iii) Copies of orders dated 11.2.2011 and 26.4.2012 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Crl. Misc. No.M-4456 of 2011.
Mehta Sachin 2013.09.24 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-28437 of 2013 -6-Copies of orders dated 11.2.2011 and 26.4.2012 passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Crl. Misc. No.M-4456 of 2011 have no relevance with the present case. Even otherwise the court can take judicial notice of the orders if produced at the time of arguments.
(iv) Copy of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in Crl.
Case No.86/2003 titled as State versus Harvinder etc. FIR No.191 dated 4.9.2003 under Sections 498-A, 406 and 506 IPC.
Copy of report under section 173 Cr.P.C. in another case State Versus Harvinder has no relevance with this case because that case was got registered by the first wife of Harvinder and it is pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent that the said case resulted in acquittal on the basis of compromise. Since that case had ended in acquittal, so that has no relevance with the present litigation.
(v) Copy of DD No.14 dated 25.12.2008 under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. registered at police station city Karnal along with its annexed documents.
Production of copy of DDR No.14 is also not related to the case in hand as that the dispute was between the complainant and parents of one of the accused and that is subsequent to the registration of this case.
(vi) Copy of MLR No.AP/878/08 dated 16.12.2008 Mehta Sachin 2013.09.24 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-28437 of 2013 -7- of Yogesh Rani d/o Kewal Krishan conducted at G.H. Karnal.
Copy of MLR No.AP/878/08 dated 16.12.2008 also cannot be allowed to be produced at this stage as this document could be relied upon in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the same has not been relied upon.
(vii) Copy of MLR dated 15.08.2006 of Gurmeet (complainant) wife of Harvinder conducted at G.H. Karnal.
Copy of MLR dated 15.8.2006 of Gurmeet (complainant) which relates to the first wife of accused Harvinder has also no relevancy for the purpose of this case.
(viii) Copy of FIR No.226 dated 4.4.2012 under Sections 323 and 506 IPC in case titled State Versus Harvinder registered in police station Civil Lines, Karnal.
Copy of FIR No.226 dated 4.4.2012 has also no relevance for the purpose of the present litigation.
(ix) Copies of orders dated 18.3.2011, 16.4.2011 and dated 7.5.2012 passed in case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. titled as Yogesh Rani Versus Harvinder Singh pending in the court of Ms. Rajni Kaushal, learned JMIC, Karnal, whereby accused No.1 was sent to civil imprisonment.
Mehta Sachin 2013.09.24 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-28437 of 2013 -8-Similarly, copies of orders passed in a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are subsequent orders and cannot be used as evidence against the accused at this stage.
(x) 27 Nos. photographs along with negatives showing the receiving of gifts/dowry by the relative of accused No.1 at the time of marriage of the complainant and accused No.1.
Photographs with regard to giving of dowry articles could easily be relied upon by the prosecution at the time of presentation of challan and now the same cannot be allowed as no useful purpose would be served by producing the said evidence.
(xi) Copy of bill No.363 dated 9.9.2005 of purchase of jewellery items from M/s Parma Nand & Sons, Saraf and Jewellers, Old Sarafa Bazar, Karnal.
Copy of bill No.363 dated 09.09.2005 could also be produced by the prosecution along challan."
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-
complainant that he restricts his prayer for examination of Medical Officer to prove the medico-legal report and also for producing the bill for the purchase of jewellery.
However, it has been rightly observed by learned Courts below that copy of MLR which is not part of the challan, cannot be Mehta Sachin 2013.09.24 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-28437 of 2013 -9- allowed to be produced at this stage. It has also been rightly observed that bill which is also not part of the challan, cannot be allowed to be produced at this stage.
In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned orders, warranting interference by this Court in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Hence, the present petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 19, 2013. JUDGE Sachin M. Mehta Sachin 2013.09.24 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CHANDIGARH