Telangana High Court
Mohd. Khader Mohiuddin vs Farhana Begum And Another on 4 January, 2023
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.95 of 2020
ORDER :
This revision is filed against the orders passed in Crl.A.No.354 of 2018, dated 30.09.2019 on the file of IX Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, which is arising out of the interlocutory orders, dated 26.02.2018 in Crl.M.P.No.221 of 2018 in DVC.No.25 of 2017 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
2. Initially, Mrs.Farhana Begum filed a Domestic Violence Case (DVC) against the respondent Mr.Mohd. Khader Mohiuddin. During the course of the trial, the petitioner/complainant filed a petition under Section 294(1)(2) of Cr.P.C. to receive the documents filed by her. The contents of the petition disclose that the said documents were not filed along with the petition as her earlier counsel did not advise her properly, and that the present counsel advised her to file the said documents, and therefore, she 2 GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.95 of 2020 filed the documents and prayed the Court to receive the said documents.
3. On the other hand, the revision petitioner/respondent filed a two line counter as follows:
"Respondents do not admit but deny genuineness of filed documents, being fabricated, false and forged; petition U/s.294 Cr.P.C. may be dismissed."
The trial Court has allowed the petition subject to proof and relevancy of the documents on a finding that the proposed documents can be challenged at the time of cross-examination of the witness, as the matter is coming up for commencement of trial, and thereby, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent.
4. Being aggrieved by the orders of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No.221 of 2018, dated 26.02.2018, the respondent in the DVC preferred an appeal and the appellate Court dismissed the appeal with a finding that there is no illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed by the respondent in the DVC. 3
GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.95 of 2020
5. Heard both sides and perused the record.
6. It is the specific contention of the revision petitioner that inspite of the counter filed by him, denying the genuineness of the documents and also taking the plea of fabrication and forgery, the trial Court has allowed the petition under Section 294 of Cr.P.C. though the contents of Section 294 are not applicable to the case.
7. Section 294 of Cr.P.C. reads as under :
"294. No formal proof of certain documents :
(1) Where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.
(2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.
(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed: Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved."4
GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.95 of 2020
8. As per the above provision, either of the parties can file any document before the Court, upon which, the other party can be called upon either to admit or deny the genuineness of such document.
9. In the present case, the revision petitioner has denied the genuineness of the documents and also taken the plea of fabrication, false and forgery, and therefore, the trial Court ought not to have received the documents under Section 294 of Cr.P.C., as the said provision is applicable only when the document is filed with consent, as no formal proof can be there for certain documents. But, the petitioner in the DVC has filed the documents to receive them and the same has been allowed by the trial Court subject to proof and relevancy. The first appellate Court has dismissed the appeal with a finding that as the petition was allowed subject to proof and relevancy, it is for the trial Court to decide the authenticity of the documents produced by the complainant, as at the time of adjudication, the party aggrieved can cross-examine on the said documents. On perusal of the said documents, it is evident 5 GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.95 of 2020 that the documents relied on by the complainant are in Arabic language and the English translation was appended along with them. If at all the revision petitioner feels that those documents are fabricated, forged or false, he can cross-examine the witness/petitioner in DVC to that effect.
10. Further, the revision petitioner has every right to challenge the documents by objecting at the time of marking. Thus, this Court only finds that the trial Court has erred in allowing to file the documents under Section 294 of Cr.P.C., as no consent was being given by the revision petitioner herein, which is only an error technical in nature. Further, there is no other provision under the Criminal Procedure Code to file the petition for receiving the documents, except under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. to summon the document or other things, which are not in the custody of the party. There is quite distinction under the law for receiving the documents, marking the documents, admissibility of the documents including proof and relevancy. The revision petitioner is at liberty 6 GAC, J Crl.R.C.No.95 of 2020 to deny the genuineness of the documents at the time of marking them during the course of trial.
11. Therefore, this Court finds there is no error or irregularity in the orders passed by the appellate Court while dismissing the appeal, and therefore, the revision case is dismissed as devoid of merits.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________ G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 04.01.2023 ajr