Dismissed

Rajkumar Naidu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC11 Apr 2024CRMP/800/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of a bail application against an order allowing prosecution to produce a photocopy of a written complaint as secondary evidence under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872, finding no ground for interference given the FIR reproduces the complaint.

What did the court decide?

The petition was declined and dismissed at the motion stage; impugned orders were upheld.

Rajkumar Naidu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRMP No. 800 of 2024

¶5

Rajkumar Naidu S/o Shri K.S. Naidu, Aged About 66 Years R/o A-601, Avenue 144, Near Shri Medishine Hospital, Amlidih, New Rajendra Nagar, District Raipur (Cg)

¶6

---- Petitioner Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Distirct Magistrate, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶8

---- Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Petitioner : Mr. Ali Asgar, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Santosh Soni, Govt. Advocate

¶9

Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order On Board

¶10

12.4.2024.

¶11

Heard.

¶12

This petition has been preferred against Order dated 01.3.2024 (Annexure-P/1) passed by 2 nd Upper Sessions Judge, Raipur (CG) in Criminal Revision No.34/2024, whereby the learned revisional Court has upheld the order dated 06.01.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (CG) in Criminal Case No.23924/2021 (wrongly mentioned as Case No.23924/2013 in the impugned order), whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur has allowed the application filed by the ADPO under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Act of 1872) and granted permission to the prosecution to adduce secondary evidence with regard to written complaint made by the complainant.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and other co-accused persons are facing aforesaid criminal trial before the learned trial Court for the offence punishable under

¶14

¶15

Sections 408, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471/34, of the Indian Penal Code. He would further submit that FIR was lodged on the basis of written complaint filed by the complainant i.e. Board of Directors, Amrapali Housing Cooperative Society, Raipur (CG). Evidence of the prosecution is going on before the trial Court, but the original written complaint has not been filed by the prosecution and the trial Court has permitted to get exhibited the photo copy of the same which is Annexure D/2 without complying the provisions of Section 65 of the Act 1872 by the prosecution with regard to adduce evidence, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order passed by learned trial Court and upheld by the learned revisional Court vide impugned orders may be set aside.

¶16

Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that in pursuance of memo written by the prosecution to the Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur, (CG) the Station House Officer of Police Station Tikrapra, Raipur has informed vide Ex-P/9 dated 27.12.2023 that none of the original documents of concerned case is available in the Police Station rather all the documents had been filed in the Court along with charge sheet. He would further submit that neither the original documents are found available in the Police Station nor available in the record, therefore, in such situation, the learned trial Court has granted permission to the prosecution to adduce secondary evidence, which is photo copy of the written complaint i.e. Annexure D/2, filed by the petitioner himself, hence, order impugned passed by both the Courts below do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶17

¶18

I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record along with orders passed by the trial Court as well as by the revisional Court.

¶19

Perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Court show that factual as well as legal aspect have been appropriately dealt with and since the prosecution has shown that neither the original documents are available with them nor the same is found in the record, therefore, considering the aforesaid facts and law referred by learned trial Court in its order, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order, particularly when perusal of the FIR, photo copy of the same has been filed by the petitioner, itself shows that aforesaid FIR has been lodged on the basis of written complaint made by Board of Directors, Amrapali Housing Cooperative Society, Raipur (CG) and that, written complaint has been reproduced word to word in the FIR. This fact itself makes the status of FIR as equivalent to primary evidence, as it has been reproduced from top to bottom in the FIR.

¶20

In view of the above consideration, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order, hence, orders passed by the trial Court as well as the revisional Court are upheld.

¶21

Resultantly, the petition fails and the same is dismissed at the motion stage.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE

¶24

Bini

Rajkumar Naidu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar Naidu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Firoz Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sandeep Kumar Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited Vs Union of India

Sunita Shrivastav through Power of Attorney Girdhari Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Saurabh Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Savitri Verma Vs Amit Meravi