Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1143 (RAJ)

Arun Mehta v. State of Rajasthan

2018-05-02

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2018
JUDGMENT Vijay Bishnoi, J. - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 30.08.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the revisional court') in Criminal Revision No.5/2017, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. The said revision petition was preferred by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 02.02.2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Udaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court') in FR No.01/2015 of Police Station Ghantaghar, District Udaipur arising out of FIR No.73/2011 of Police Station Ghantaghar, District Udaipur, whereby the trial court partly allowed the application filed by the respondent No.2 under Section 91 Cr.P.C. and directed the SHO, Police Station Ghantaghar, District Udaipur to produce certain documents before passing any final order on the FR submitted by the police as well as on the protest petition filed by the respondent No.2. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 lodged the FIR No.73/2011 at Police Station Ghantaghar, District Udaipur naming the petitioners as accused for the offences punishable under Section 454 and 380 IPC. 3. The investigation into the allegations levelled in the above referred FIR was conducted by six police officers viz. (1) SHO, Police Station Ghantaghar, Udaipur, (2) SHO, Police Station Dhanmandi, Udaipur, (3) Additional Superintendent of Police, Udaipur, (4) Additional Superintendent of Police, Headquarter, Udaipur, (5) Additional Superintendent of Police, CID (CB), Udaipur and (6) Additional Superintendent of Police, ACB, Udaipur. Ultimately the Additional Superintendent of Police, ACB, Udaipur submitted the Final Report No.01/2015 before the trial court, simultaneously, the respondent No.2 also filed protest petition and the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. before the trial court, being aggrieved with above referred FR filed by the police. 4. Ultimately the Additional Superintendent of Police, ACB, Udaipur submitted the Final Report No.01/2015 before the trial court, simultaneously, the respondent No.2 also filed protest petition and the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. before the trial court, being aggrieved with above referred FR filed by the police. 4. While arguing on the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C., the counsel for the respondent No.2 before the trial court submitted that the investigation into the allegations levelled in the above referred FIR, filed by the respondent No.2, was conducted by as many as six police officers, however, the last officer, who had submitted the FR, did not produce on record certain documents and statements of witnesses, recorded by the different Investigating Officers, and the documents collected by the police during the course of investigation, though, he has placed reliance on those statements and documents while submitting the FR. 5. The trial court vide order dated 02.02.2017, after hearing the respondent No.2 as well as the Public Prosecutor, has observed that though the Additional Superintendent of Police, ACB, Udaipur has placed reliance on certain statements of the witnesses, recorded during the course of investigation by the different police officers, and also placed reliance on certain documents, collected during the course of investigation, but has not placed the copies of those statements and the documents on record. The trial court is of the opinion that before passing any order on protest petition, filed by the respondent No.2, it is necessary in the interest of justice to summon those documents from the SHO, Police Station Ghantaghar, District Udaipur. 6. The petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 02.02.2017 passed by the trial court preferred a revision petition before the revisional court, however, the revisional court dismissed the same while observing that there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial court. Hence, this criminal misc. petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the trial court has grossly erred in partly allowing the application preferred on behalf of the respondent No.2 under Section 91 Cr.P.C. It is argued that the trial court is supposed to apply its mind only on the material submitted before it by the police along with the final report and no other documents can be summoned by the trial court while taking into consideration the protest petition filed by the complainant. 8. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order passed by the trial court is ex-facie illegal and without taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, the revisional court vide order dated 30.08.2017 has also erred in rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioners. 9. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi reported in (2005) 1 SCC 568 . 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and learned Public Prosecutor have supported the impugned orders passed by both the courts below and prayed for dismissal of this criminal misc. petition. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders passed by the courts below. 12. There is no dispute about the position of law that the trial court while considering the final report, submitted by the police, or while considering the protest petition, filed by the respondent No.2, is required to look into only that material collected by the police and submitted along with final report, however, if the material on which the Investigating Officer places reliance, or on the basis of which he has drawn final conclusions, are not filed along with final report, this Court is of the opinion that the trial court has every right to summon those documents before passing any order on the final report, submitted by the police, or on the protest petition, filed by the complainant. 13. In the present case, the trial court has found that while drawing final conclusion, the Investigating Officer has placed reliance on certain statements of the witnesses and the documents collected during the course of investigation but the original copies of those statements and the documents are not part of the material submitted along with the final report. The trial court deemed it necessary to summon those documents before passing any order in the matter. 14. I am of the opinion that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court in the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. So far as the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in State of Orissa Vs. 14. I am of the opinion that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court in the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. So far as the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi (supra) is concerned the same has no application in the present case as in the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has only dealt with the right of the accused for making a prayer for summoning certain documents before the stage of framing of charges. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the accused has no right to request for summoning documents under Section 91 Cr.P.C. before the stage of framing of charges against him, however, as observed earlier in the present case the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was preferred by the complainant and not by the accused. 16. In view of the above discussions, I don't find any merit in this criminal misc. petition, hence, the same is hereby dismissed. 17. Stay petition also stands dismissed.