V.SANTHI Vs. G.VENKATESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C. the petitioner has called in question the order dated 13.05.2009 passed by VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 503/2008 whereby an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents came to be allowed. The revision petitioner -Smt. V. Shanthi filed a petition before VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore under Section 29 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her husband and two brothers of her husband on the ground that she has been subjected to harassment, ill -treatment by the respondents. The respondents appeared and opposed the petition on the ground that there is no substance in the said petition. As such, the petitioner in order to prove her case, got examined herself as PW1 and her son Dinesh as P.W. 2. While cross -examination of P.W. 2 was in progress, the respondents have filed the instant application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. to call upon the petitioner to produce Passbook, Bank Extract of P.W. -2 and the Discharge Summary of the respondent No. 1 issued by Columbia Asia Hospital. The application has been opposed by the wife. It was heard by the learned Magistrate and by the impugned order dated 13.05.2009, the application came to be allowed. Therefore, this revision petition.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the both the parties. Perused the records. It is seen from the application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. that the respondents filed the said application in order to direct the petitioner to produce Passbook, Bank Extract of her son P.W. -2 and Discharge Summary of the respondent No. 1 issued by Columbia Asia Hospital. It is also seen from the order that the petitioner has produced the Passbook, Bank Extract as desired by the respondents. But the petitioner has not produced the Discharge Summary issued by the Columbia Asia Hospital on the ground that she is not in possession of the same. The main reason for the respondents to call upon to produce the Discharge Summary issued by Columbia Asia Hospital is that during the evidence of P.W. 2 - the son of the petitioner, he has deposed that he paid the hospital expenses of the Columbia Asia Hospital in respect of treatment of the respondent No. 1 -his father who underwent surgery. According to the respondents, he has not at all paid the bill nor he looked after his father. Therefore, it is, in order to establish the said fact the respondents request the Court to call upon the petitioner to produce the Discharge Summary said to have been issued by the Columbia Asia Hospital. The petitioner has made it clear that the Discharge Summary is not in possession of the petitioner or her son. If at all, the respondents can approach the Columbia Asia Hospital and obtain the copy of the Discharge Summary. When the petitioner has made it clear that she is not in possession of the Discharge Summary, directing the petitioner to produce the Discharge Summary of the respondent No. 1 issued by the Columbia Asia Hospital was uncalled for. Hence, the impugned order calls for my interference. Accordingly, I pass the following order.