SALABH GOYAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant has filed the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 CrPC challenging the order dated 18.8.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 3rd, Haridwar in Complaint Case No. 460/2017 as well as the order dated 7.6.2019 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Criminal Revision No. 603/2018.

(2.) The background facts of the case are that the respondent no. 2 instituted a complaint case in the year 2011 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the applicant, wherein the applicant was summoned vide order dated 24.6.2011 to face the trial. On 6.8.2018, respondent no. 2/complainant moved an application with the prayer to take some documents on record. Applicant filed objections against the said application. Vide impugned order dated 18.8.2018, the trial court, after considering the objections of the applicant, allowed the said application of the complainant. Applicant assailed the order dated 18.8.2018 by filing the Criminal Revision No. 603 of 2018, which was also dismissed by the revisional court vide impugned order dated 7.6.2019. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed this criminal miscellaneous application before this Court challenging the aforementioned two orders.

(3.) Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the papers on record, it transpires that the accused applicant during his deposition produced some papers and in rebuttal thereof, the complainant sought permission to file some documents. The accused applicant opposed the said application of the complainant on the ground that statement of the complainant under Section 313 CrPC has already been recorded and the trial is at the advance stage and, therefore, the complainant cannot be permitted to file documents at this stage. Learned Courts below have observed that complainant has filed the documents in the rebuttal of the accused applicant's documents and the same are required to be taken on record for the just and proper decision of the case. Accordingly, the objections of the accused applicant were overruled and it was observed that revisionist/applicant could not show as to why these documents cannot be taken on record.