Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 273 (RAJ)

Mohd. Salim v. Mohd. Anwar

2016-02-17

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 18.04.2013 passed by the trial court, whereby, the prayer made by the Investigating Officer in C.R. No.33/2013 for delivery of original document has been rejected by the trial court. 2. In the pending suit, the application was filed by the Investigating Officer seeking delivery of document, an affidavit, said to have been executed by Abdul Hakim. 3. The application was opposed by the respondents and the trial court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the document was got produced by the petitioner himself by filing application under Order 11, Rule 14 CPC and that the civil dispute was sought to be given a colour of criminal case, which is not permissible in law and, consequently, rejected the application. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court was not justified in rejecting the application for delivery of the document for the reasons indicated by it in the order impugned and, therefore, the order deserves to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order impugned; it was submitted that the document was got produced by the petitioner himself; the evidence of the petitioner is yet to commence, wherein, the document would be required to be exhibited/confronted and, therefore, once the original document is handed over to the Police authorities, the same would result in delay of the proceedings before the trial court; it was submitted that the next date fixed before the trial court for petitioner's evidence is 20.02.2016 and in case the document is delivered to the Police authorities after the statement of petitioner is over, the respondent as such has no objection. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 7. The reasons indicated by the trial court for rejecting the prayer made by the Investigating Officer is apparently baseless and a prayer cannot be denied on account of the fact that allegedly a civil dispute was sought to be given colour of a criminal case. 8. 7. The reasons indicated by the trial court for rejecting the prayer made by the Investigating Officer is apparently baseless and a prayer cannot be denied on account of the fact that allegedly a civil dispute was sought to be given colour of a criminal case. 8. In view of the fact that a criminal complaint was filed and for investigation of the said complaint the Police required the original document, and has made application to the trial court, the trial court while ensuring its safety and the fact that the trial before the civil court is not protracted, should have ordered the delivery of the document to the Investigating Officer. 9. In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 18.04.2013 is set aside. The trial court is directed to hand over the original of the affidavit as required by the Investigating Officer ensuring the safe return of the document after the statement of the petitioner is recorded on 20.02.2016 or any other date. It is made clear that the directions issued by this Court have only been passed with a view to examine the validity of the order dated 18.04.2013 passed by the trial court and shall not be taken as expression of any opinion on merit of the dispute.