Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vaman Narayan Ghiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 7 March, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C No. 9396/2018
(VAMAN NARAYAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR)
Gwalior Bench:
Dated:07/03/2018
Shri Puneet Parihar and Ms. Anshul Sharma, learned counsel
for petitioner.
Shri Prakhar Dangula and Shri Vivek Bhargava, learned
Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
The present petition under Section 482 r/w Sec. 483 of Cr.P.C has been preferred for deletion/expungment of documents exhibited and marked as P/13 in the statement of (PW/8) namely, Ram Singh. By the said statement, witness intends to incorporate the statement of complainant Maniram given under Section 161 of Cr.P.C in FIR No. 142/2003 registered at Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur and the said documents are allowed to be exhibited in the statement of P.W-8/Investigating Officer of case registered vide Crime No. 142/2003.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the statement made by the complainant under Section 161 of Cr.P.C in another case cannot be taken into evidence and marked as exhibit against the provision contained in Sec. 145 of Evidence Act. The objections raised by the petitioner at the time of Examination in Chief of investigating Officer in Case No. 142/2003 was just and legal and overruling of the same by trial Court is illegal. Through the charge-sheet and judgment passed in another case by the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, learned counsel for the petitioner tries to bolster their submissions.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that Sec. 145 of Evidence Act itself provides the mechanism wherein any statement reduced in writing can be used in evidence and it can be exhibited.
On perusal of the case in hand it appears that charge-sheet THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C No. 9396/2018 (VAMAN NARAYAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR) is not on record and petitioner has filed only examination in chief of the Officer concerned as well as statement of complainant/Mani Ram under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Neither charge-sheet nor documents which are relied upon by the petitioner have been filed.
Therefore, petitioner is directed to file the charge-sheet and judgment which is relied by the petitioner. At this juncture, learned counsel for petitioner informs this Court that one more petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C vide M.Cr.C No. 22973/2017 is pending consideration. List this case along with M.Cr.C No. 22973/2017 in the week commencing 26.03.2018.
(Anand Pathak) Judge LJ* Digitally signed by LOKENDRA JAIN Date: 2018.03.12 18:18:43 +05'30'