Bombay High Court
Jawahar S/O Radhakrishna ... vs Rajendra S/O Tanbaji Kalambe on 11 April, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 wp960.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.960 OF 2015
Shri Jawahar S/o.Radhakrishna Khandelwal,
aged about 58 years, Occupation : Business,
R/o. Khandelwal Layout, Ward No.17,
Narkhed, Tq. Narkhed, Dist. Nagpur.
.... PETITIONER.
// VERSUS //
Shri Rajendra S/o. Tanbaji Kalambe,
Aged about 38 years, Occupation :
General Stores, R/o. Narkhed,
Tah. Narkhed, Dist. Nagpur.
.... RESPONDENT
.
______________________________________________________________
Shri R.A.Bagde, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri H.D.Futane, Advocate for Respondent.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : APRIL 11, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
Judgment 2 wp960.15.odt
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioner/complainant has challenged the order
passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the application filed by the
petitioner seeking permission to place on record certain documents to
substantiate the averments made in the complaint filed by the
petitioner against the respondent.
4. The petitioner has filed complaint against the respondent
praying that he be prosecuted and convicted for the offence punishable
under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned
Magistrate has proceeded with the prosecution and evidence of the
complainant is recorded. At this stage, the petitioner/ complainant has
filed application seeking permission to produce certain documents on
the record. The application is rejected by the learned Magistrate
observing that the documents which are being sought to be produced
are not relevant and are inadmissible being photocopies.
5. The learned advocate for the respondent has pointed out
the copies of the documents which are being sought to be produced by
the petitioner and has submitted that there is nothing in the documents
Judgment 3 wp960.15.odt
which can be said to be relevant for the purposes of deciding the
complaint filed by the petitioner.
6. After considering the submissions made by the learned
advocate for the petitioner and considering the facts on record, in my
view, the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to
produce copies of the documents on record could not have been
rejected on the ground that the documents are not relevant and they
are inadmissible being photocopies.
7. Hence, the following order :
i) The impugned order is set aside.
ii) The application filed by the petitioner seeking permission
to produce copies of the documents on record is allowed.
iii) The learned Magistrate shall consider the relevance and
admissibility of the documents at an appropriate stage
after giving opportunity to the petitioner to prove the
relevance and admissibility of the documents according to
law.
Judgment 4 wp960.15.odt
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the
circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
RRaut..
