Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sharda Raikwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 November, 2015
CRR-1803-2015
(SMT. SHARDA RAIKWAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
03-11-2015
Shri Sharad Pandey, counsel for the applicant.
Shri P.K.Pandey, Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 27-06-2015 passed by the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Itarsi, District Hoshangabad in Sessions Trial No.1131/2013, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge had dismissed the application filed on behalf of applicant for a direction to the prosecution to produce the call details.
It appears from the impugned order and the documents filed along with this criminal revision that as per the prosecution case, there was a love affair between deceased Rahul Raikwar, who was son of the present applicant and accused/respondent No.3 Sweta Yadav, who is wife of respondent No.2 Sarvesh Yadav. It has been alleged by the prosecution that the deceased obtained service at a place called Kawsa Nagar in Maharashtra; however, the respondents/accused persons were not letting him go to the aforesaid place joining the service and threatened to implicate him in false rape case. Thus, mentally tortured, the deceased committed suicide. Aforesaid sessions trial is pending against the accused persons under section 306 of the IPC.
During trial, applicant Sharda Raikwar, mother of the deceased, moved an application before the trial Court for a direction to the prosecution to file call details between the telephone numbers of deceased and the respondent/accused No.3 for the period of 14 months immediately preceding the date of incident, i.e. 17-03-2013.
During the course of arguments, it has been submitted by learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State that the call details are available only for a period of 6 months; therefore, it was not possible on 27-06-2015, to obtain the call details for a period of 14 months immediately preceding the date of the incident i.e. 17-03-2013. For aforesaid reason the learned trial Court had dismissed the application. Learned counsel for the applicant does not dispute this position.
In aforesaid circumstances, learned trial Court committed no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in rejecting the application by the impugned order, warranting interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. In any case, the order dated 27-06-2015 was an interlocutory order and a revision thereagainst would be hit by sub-section (2) of section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, this criminal revision being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.
(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE