Criminal Petition under Section 482 CrPC to permit examination of all listed witnesses dismissed. Petitioner is directed to cooperate and dispose of 2012 case within six months.
Petition dismissed; Calendar Case to be disposed of within six months; petitioner to cooperate.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.17191 OF 2016
ORDER:
Questioning the order, dated 30.11.2016, in Criminal Revision Petition No.17 of 2016, passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Srikakulam, the revision petitioner - de facto complainant filed the present Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Code’).
2 ASN,J Crl.P. No.17191 of 2016
still pending; and thereby while rejecting to examine the witnesses, allowed only to the extent of examining the Investigating Officer - Sri S. Kesava Rao, on payment of process, and directed to post the matter on 12.04.2016.
3 ASN,J
Crl.P. No.17191 of 2016
i) He has also relied on yet another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sayeeda Farhana Shamim v. State of Bihar2 , on
which, the learned counsel for respondents - accused relied upon.
came forward with the said Criminal M.P. the other submission is based on the decision in Sayeeda Farhana Shamim’s Case (Supra 2) for the proposition that the Magistrate under Section 244 (2) of the Code should use the power conferred in appropriate cases for reasons to be recorded, and the discretion should not be used fancifully and for a mala fide purpose to harass the accused; it is quite possible that sometimes when the complainant fails to substantiate the allegation,
4 ASN,J
Crl.P. No.17191 of 2016
he may resort to dilatory tactics and thereby harass the accused by giving supplementary list to prolong the continuance of the case; the same should be checked; but in case it is found that in fact the application for summoning the additional witnesses is made for bona fide purpose and to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint, then the Magistrate may exercise such power in appropriate cases.
5 ASN,J
Crl.P. No.17191 of 2016
respondents - accused would not get a chance till they are examined under Section 313 of the Code. Even, in the present petition, the petitioner is not clear in coming out with relevant facts, with which each of the witnesses are connected and will have to speak or the purpose for which he intends to examine each of them. Therefore, the present petition is without any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the petition, stand closed.
__________________________ A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J
February 23, 2017.
Mgr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to permit examination of all listed witnesses succeeds against the order allowing only additional witnesses.
Whether the learned Magistrate was justified in rejecting witnesses not listed in the complaint or named in the case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jamuna Rani v. S. Krishna Kumar and othersReferred¶10
Jamuna Rani v. S. Krishna Kumar and others [1993 Crl.L.J. 32]
Sayeeda Farhana Shamim v. State of BiharReferred¶14
Sayeeda Farhana Shamim v. State of Bihar [(2008) 8 SCC 218] · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
De facto complainant
Respondents-Accused
A. Shankar Narayana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
