AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Present petition is preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recalling of the order dated 6.2.2018 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.898 of 2017 whereby, this court dismissed the petition and confirmed the order dated 25.7.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior in Cr.Revision No.239 of 2016.
Precisely stated, facts of the case are that petitioner has filed private complaint against the respondents before the trial Court in respect of the allegation in respect of offence under Section 500 of IPC. As per the complaint, respondents No.1 and 2 are the father and son and they tried to malign the image of the petitioner by making false and frivolous complaint against the petitioner and they tried to malign the image of the petitioner in the eye of neighbours of the petitioner.
The trial Court vide order dated 26.08.2010 taken cognizance against the accused person under Section 500 of IPC and called the accused to face trial. It appears that during the pendency of the criminal case, the petitioner moved an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. to call the inquiry report which is being conducted by the City Superintendent of Police (Crime), Gwalior in respect of the frivolous complaint which was made by the accused person against the petitioner just to show the malafide and malicious intent of the respondents. The copy of the said report has been obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act. Since the inquiry report having some reflection upon the conduct of the respondents who have allegedly committed offence under Section 500 of IPC, therefore, the documents referred (the inquiry report) were tried to be called by the petitioner.
Application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C was rejected by the trial court on the ground that in the list of witnesses, name of person was not mentioned and the factum of inquiry was also missing in the pleadings of the complaint. After rejection of the application, petitioner preferred a revision before revisional authority but the same got dismissed. Thereafter, petitioner preferred M.Cr.C.No.898 of 2017 before this court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Grievance of the petitioner was that once contents of the application indicate that inquiry report is required to be brought on record for evidence purpose, therefore, it is important that it ought to be brought on record.
On the other hand, respondent in the said petition opposed the prayer and submitted that trial court has already taken cognizance in the matter and petitioner has obtained a copy of the inquiry report under R.T.I, then he is always at liberty to use the said report in accordance with law.
This court granted liberty to the petitioner to use the document or witnesses involved in the case as per law at proper stage if law permits so and declined interference.
Now, through this petition, petitioner has again tried to revisit the same grievance and taking exception to the order passed by this court on the ground that this court has come to the conclusion about the use of document or witnesses in the case as per law. Therefore, through this petition, petitioner is seeking review by way of liberty to the extent that he be permitted to produce investigating officer/inquiry officer to prove his inquiry report with further liberty to cross-examine him.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.
Here the petitioner is seeking review of order dated 6.2.2018 passed by this court on the ground of doing substantial justice by permitting petitioner to produce Investigating Officer/Inquiry Officer to prove inquiry report done earlier. Once this court has opined about the position that the document taken under R.T.I can be used by the petitioner if law permits at appropriate stage, then no further direction can be given under the garb of review of earlier order. The order under challenge is final order and parties have to proceed as per the direction of the said order. No case for interference is made out.
Resultantly, the interference is declined and petition is dismissed.