Dismissed

Rajendra Gawalani v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC5 Sept 2023CRR/140/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a criminal revision petition against an order where the trial court rejected the accused's objection to a prosecutrix producing documents during her examination-in-chief, finding no illegality or perversity warranting interference.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rajendra Gawalani Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Order reserved on : 22-06-2023

¶5

Order passed on : 05/09/2023

¶6

Criminal Revision No. 140 of 2019

¶7

Rajendra Gawalani, S/o Shri Karamchand Gawalani, aged about 45 years, R/o Santkanwar Ram Ward, Bhatapara, Tehsil Bhatapara, Civil and Revenue District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

---- Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Simga, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

---- Respondent

¶12

For Petitioner	:	Mr. Maonj Paranjpe and Mr. Amit Soni, Advocates.
For Respondent/State	:	Mr. Anurag Verma, Panel Lawyer.
For Complainant	:	Mr. Suresh Verma, Advocate.

¶13

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey CAV Order

¶14

This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of CrPC has been filed against the order dated 9.1.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara in Sessions Case No.H-54/2016 whereby the Court below has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/accused dated 5.1.2019.

¶15

The petitioner/accused is facing trial before the learned trial Court under Section 376 of IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. During examination of the prosecutrix (PW-4) she produced some documents before the trial Court. When the defence/petitioner objected to the said documents, the learned trial Court recorded the objection of the petitioner in the deposition sheet

¶16

¶17

and the order sheet and postponed the remaining examination of the prosecutrix. Thereafter, the petitioner filed written objection on 5.1.2019 (Annexure P/3) before the learned trial Court. After hearing the arguments of both the parties, the learned trial Court rejected the application/objection of the petitioner by the impugned order. Hence this revision.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecutrix filed a complaint against the petitioner on false and fabricated grounds. On 6.6.2015 the complaint was made by the prosecutrix but after enquiry it is revealed that no offence is made out against the petitioner. However, the prosecutrix again filed a complaint against the petitioner. She did not state in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of CrPC about any document and suddenly filed the documents during her examination-in-chief. The said documents are not part of the charge sheet, therefore, the same cannot be taken on record. Learned trial Court passed the impugned order by ignoring the settled principle of criminal jurisprudence and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶19

Reliance has been placed on the decisions in the matters of Reeta Nag Vs. State of West Bengal and others, (2009) 9 SCC 129; Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel Vs. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel and others, (2017) 4 SCC 177; Bhagyashree Prashant Wasankar Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 1064 ; and the order dated 26^th August, 2021 passed by Calcutta High Court in the case of Smt. Papiya Das .

¶20

¶21

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and the complainant have supported the impugned order.

¶22

Reliance is placed on the decision in the matter of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. R.S. Pai and another, (2002) 5 SCC 82.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶24

The petitioner filed the deposition sheet of the prosecutrix where in para 27 she states that when she went to police station to lodge report against the petitioner, at that time she produced the hotel bills and other documents, which she has brought today, but the police did not take those documents saying that it should be produced before the Court. Therefore, she wants to produce those documents and the same may be exhibited. At that time, the petitioner raised objection and examination of the prosecutrix was postponed.

¶25

Learned trial Court provided copy of those documents to the defence/petitioner and also directed the investigating officer to supply copy of the compact disc annexed with the FSL report to the petitioner. The learned trial Court after hearing arguments of both the parties and considering the nature of the documents sought to be produced by the prosecutrix, rejected the application of the petitioner reserving liberty with him to submit his arguments regarding admissibility of such documents which shall be decided at the time of final judgment. The following observation of the learned trial Court in the impugned order being relevant is reproduced as under:

¶26

¶27

“… vfHk;kstu dk mDr ewy vk/kkj vfHk;ksx i= esa layXu nLrkostksa esa Hkh mYysf[kr gSA ;|fi izkFkhZ;k }kjk izLrqr nLrkost vfHk;ksx i= ds lkFk layXu ugh gS] fdUrq izkFkhZ;k bl izdj.k dh ihfM+rk gS] ftls mlds }kjk yxk;s x;s vkjksi ds leFkZu esa nLrkost izLrqr djus ls oafpr ugh fd;k tk ldrk gSA izLrqr nLrkost izdj.k esa fujkdj.k ds fy, vko’;d gksuk izrhr gksrk gSA nLrkostksa dh izfr vfHk;qDr dks iznku dh tk pqdh gS rFkk izkFkhZ;k dk izfrijh{k.k fd;k tkuk ‘ks”k gSA fopkj.k ds nkSjku vfHk;kstu dh vksj ls izLrqr lk{; ,ao nLrkostks dks vfHkys[k esa fy;k tkrk gS] vr% cpko i{k dh vksj ls izLrqr vkifRr bl Vhi ds lkFk fujLr fd;k tkrk gS fd cpko i{k ihfM+rk ds lk{; ds nkSjku izLrqr nLrkostks ds xzkg~;rk ds laca/k esa fu.kZ; ds iwoZ rdZ izLrqr dj ldrk gS] ftldk fujkdj.k fu.kZ; ds le; fd;k tk;sxkA

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the additional documents could be produced by following the procedure of further investigation as contemplated under Section 173(8) of CrPC. He placed his reliance on various decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

¶29

Section 173(8) of CrPC reads as under:

¶30

“ 173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation. -

¶31

(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2).”

¶32

The main objection of the petitioner is that in this case the prosecution did not file any document and the prosecutrix who is a

¶33

¶34

witness in this case filed documents directly before the trial Court whereas there is no reference to any provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure invoked by the witness for producing those documents directly in such a manner.

¶35

It is clear from the impugned order that when the prosecutrix filed some documents before the trial Court, objection was raised by the petitioner and recording of her remaining evidence was postponed. It is also clear from the order sheet that copy of all those documents were given to the petitioner. Learned trial Court has also observed that the issue of admissibility of these documents shall be decided at the time of passing of final judgment. The prosecutrix has clearly stated that she produced all these documents at the time of lodging FIR but the investigating officer did not take those documents. It is also clear from the order sheet and the deposition sheet that the petitioner has the opportunity to cross-examine the witness and also u/s 313 of CrPC he can produce oral and documentary evidence in his defence.

¶36

Thus, in the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of Section 173(8) of CrPC, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order of the learned trial Court which warrants any interference by this Court. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner being distinguishable on facts are of no help to him. Accordingly, the revision petition being without any substance is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

¶37

Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge

¶38

Khan

Rajendra Gawalani v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rajendra Gawalani v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dashrath Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajkishor Mishra Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Pooja Chandrakar Vs Avinash Dilliwar

Smt. Devkumari Vs Smt. Pardeshnin Bai

Pawan Kumar Srivas Vs Smt. Kiran Srivas

Naseeb Khan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh