JUDGMENT 1. - I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the relevant documents placed before me. 2. The instant petition under Section 482 read with Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 24.3.2000 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 342/1997 whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Section 91 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 3. Brief facts giving rise to this petition and necessary for its disposal are that complainant Pushkar Dutt Joshi lodged an F.I.R. No. 437/1997 at Police Station Bani Park, Jaipur against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed. At the stage of framing of charges, the petitioner summoning case diary from the police station or the office of the APP and to look into the same before framing of the charges against the accused-petitioners. The trial Court rejected the said application vide impugned order dated 24.3.2000. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the learned Court below has wrongly and unjustifiably refused the application of the petitioner filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for smmoning the case diary. According to him, police is bound to place all the relevant evidence and material before the Court. The police having kept back the relevant material, the Court ought to have summoned the case diary. 5. While trying to support the impugned order, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the contention with equal vehemence. 6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and have perused the relevant documents and the case law cited at the bar. 7. It may be stated at the out-set that it is now well settled in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court that the documents of the defence cannot be looked into at the time of framing of charges and the Court can at this stage consider only the police report and the documents filed with it under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. 8. Section 207 Cr.P.C. deals with supply to the accused copies of the documents of the police report and other documents and Section 173(5) Cr.P.C. provides as under: "173(5)-When such report is in respect of a case to which Section 170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate alongwith the report - (a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation; (b) the statements recorded under Section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution purposes to examine as its witnesses. 9. Learned trial Court has declined to summon the case diary at the stage of framing of charge in the instant case and I do not find any cogent and valid reason to interfere with the said order in exercise of inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which are to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. In the instant case, no such case is made out. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the cases of Davendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, RLR 1990 (2) 629 ; Bhika Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1998 RCC 570 ; State of Kerala v. Raghavan, 1974 Cr LJ 1373 ; Navin Ramji Kamani v. K.C. Shekhran, 1981 RCC 218 ; Sagar Suri and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2000 (1) SC 360 ; Dalla v. State of Rajasthan, 1987 RLW 517 and Purshottam Jethanand v. The State of Kutch, AIR 1954 SC 700 , but all these cases being distinguishable on facts do not help the petitioner. 11. In this view of the matter, therefore, this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioners shall be free to move such an application at the appropriate stage of the proceedings during the course of the trial, if so advised.Petition dismissed. *******