ORDER : The petitioners have come forward with this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking a direction to set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Additional Mahila) Court, Tirunelveli, dated 23.07.2015 made in Cr.M.P.No. 351 of 2015 in C.C.No.104 of 2013. 2. Even though the matter was posted under the caption 'for dismissal', the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner appeared and advanced his arguments. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners filed an application under Section 91 (1) Cr.P.C, to call for the records in Crime No.163 of 2011 on the file of Uthumalai Police Station and Crime No.80 of 2012 on the file of the respondent police, stating that the production of the Case Diaries in those cases, is necessary to prove their defence that on the basis of the complaint given by one Amudha, they are facing criminal trial for the offences under Sections 506(2) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, and the said complaints were only by way of wrecking vengeance against the petitioners. However, the trial Court dismissed the said application stating that the petitioners are not entitled to call for the records and they have not perused the Case Diaries and hence, he prays for setting aside the order passed by the trial Court. 4. Considering the rival submissions and also on perusal of the documents in C.C.No.104 of 2013, it is seen that after examination of the Investigating Officer, the petitioners/A. 1 and A.2 came forward with the application under Section 91(1) Cr.P.C seeking for production of Case Diaries pertaining to Oothumalai Police Station in Crime No.163 of 2011 and Devarkulam Police Station in Crime No.80 of 2012, to prove that there was previous enmity between them. Except the Court and Investigating Officer, no one is entitled to peruse the Case Diary to prove the evidence he may very well entitle to get a certified copy of FIR, charge sheet, complaint and produced before the Court. 5. In such circumstances, the petitioners may very well obtain the copy from the Court. But without doing so, after examination of PW6, the petitioners filed an application under Section 91(1) Cr.P.C., before the trial Court, which shows their mala fide to drag on the proceedings. The trial Court has rightly considered the all aspect and dismissed the same. 5. In such circumstances, the petitioners may very well obtain the copy from the Court. But without doing so, after examination of PW6, the petitioners filed an application under Section 91(1) Cr.P.C., before the trial Court, which shows their mala fide to drag on the proceedings. The trial Court has rightly considered the all aspect and dismissed the same. Hence, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. 6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.