Allowed

Mahesh Prasad & Ors. v. Romita Prasad & Anr.

Calcutta HC1 Feb 2023CRR/855/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a 12-year-old criminal revision regarding the admission of a complainant's FIR signature, the court set aside the lower court order that admitted the FIR's content as evidence, ruling only the signature is admissible while the content requires separate proof.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; criminal revision disposed of; order of stay vacated; copy sent to trial court.

Mahesh Prasad & Ors. Vs Romita Prasad & Anr. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

01.02.2023 Item No. 18 BR

¶2

CRR 855 of 2011

¶3

In the matter of: Mahesh Prasad and Ors.

¶4

……. petitioners

¶5

None is found present on behalf of the petitioner. Criminal revision is pending for nearly twelve years. Therefore, I propose to dispose of the application on merit based on materials available with the record.

¶6

Challenge in this application is to the order passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 1 Court, Siliguri passed in criminal revision No. 40 of 2010 whereby the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court Siliguri on 9th June, 2010 in CR case No. 261 of 2008 was affirmed.

¶7

Fact of the case in brief is that in a Misc. proceeding the learned counsel representing for the complainant wanted to get the signature of the complainant admitted into evidence which was opposed by the accused person and learned trial Court admitted the same. Accordingly accused person challenged the order of learned trial Court by preferring a criminal revision before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge. From the impugned judgment I find that the complainant wants to prove the petition of complaint in the criminal trial and it was admitted into evidence. Unlike FIR petition of complaint cannot be admitted into evidence but it can always

¶8

¶9

be used as the previous statement of the complainant andcomplainant can be confronted with such statement by the accused persons in course of trial. However, the signature of the complainant if learned trial Court consider it relevant or the purpose of adjudication, may be admitted into evidence, not the content of the complainant as a whole. Content of the petition of complaint is required to be proved by adducing evidence. It cannot be admitted as a document under the provision of law. Therefore, impugned order should not be allowed to remain in force.

¶10

The order passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Sessions Judge is set aside. The criminal revision is, thus disposed of.

¶11

The order of stay, if any, stands vacated.

¶12

Copy of this order be sent down to the learned trial Court

¶13

for information and necessary action.

¶14

Urgent certified copy if applied therefor, be supplied upon compliance of usual formalities.

¶15

(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.)

Mahesh Prasad & Ors. v. Romita Prasad & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Prasad & Ors. v. Romita Prasad & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Srikanta Das Vs Nanigopal Dutta & Anr.

Srikanta Das Vs Nanigopal Dutta & Anr.

Bratati Bose Vs M/S Micromat Industries

Krishna Bahadur Chhetri Vs Gita Chhetri

Mihir Das Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.

Chitra Das Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.