BAZEENA SUNILKUMAR Vs. THANKAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the complainant in C. C. 128/2005 on the file of Judicial magistrate of First Class-V, Kozhikode. Respondents 2 to 15 are the accused. After framing the charge cross examination of prosecution witnesses were begun. Petitioner filed Annexure A petition (C. M. P. 6598/08) to receive two documents the first being the copy of O. P. 312/2004 along with the counter filed and the other certified copy of deposition of A. V. Choyi in that case. The petition was opposed by the accused contending that the relevancy of the documents is not mentioned and production is belated. Learned Magistrate under annexure D order dismissed the petition for the reason that relevancy of the documents is not mentioned and ample opportunity was given earlier as the case was pending since 2005 onwards. This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners Crl. M. C. 1726/2009 2 was heard.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that learned magistrate was not justified in dismissing the application and shutting out the evidence when the accused have ample opportunity to discredit the documents by cross examining the witnessed and the fact that relevancy is not mentioned in that application is not a ground to dismiss the application as the relevancy could be asked to the witness at the time of cross examination.