BINDIYA HILLARY MEHRA Vs. DIPAK R MEHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Criminal Revision has been filed by the petitioner praying to set aside the order dated 1. 7. 2004 passed in C. C. No. 8219 of 2001 by the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai by calling for and examining the said records.

(2.) TODAY when the matter is taken up for consideration in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents, what comes to be known is that the complainant/petitioner herein lodged a private complaint against the respondents, which was taken on file as C. C. No. 8219 of 2004 by the Court below for the offence under Section 494 IPC read with Section 200 Cr. P. C. and that during pendency of the trial, the Court below passed the following order:

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the revision petitioner has come forward to file the above revision seeking to set aside the said order on the grounds such as that though the respondent has been consistently praying for PW. 2 to be summoned before the Court for giving her exemplar signature, the same has not been granted by this Court in Crl. R. C. No. 784 of 2003 vide its order dated 25. 7. 2003 and that the Court below itself has dismissed the memo dated 13. 2. 2004 on 3. 3. 2004; that Crl. R. C. No. 724 of 2004 filed by the respondent was dismissed; that finally again the Court below allowed Crl. M. P. No. 194 of 2004 filed to advance the hearing for sending the said two documents for forensic opinion; that the lower Court grossly erred and acted in abuse and excess of jurisdiction in ignoring, refusing and even brushing aside the petitioner's personal request during the Advocates' Boycott on 1. 7. 2004 to even look into, much less consider, the earlier orders passed regarding the very same matter both by this Court as well as the earlier Presiding Officer of the Court and even refusing to permit the petitioner to file her objections and/or even give her an opportunity for her counsel to be in a position to represent in the matter before the Court; that it was not the stage for the identification of the person/s who signed Ex. C. 3 and Ex. D. 1 but whether the two signatures could be said to be of one and the same person and not necessarily PW. 2; that even CW. 1 Hotel Anand Regency through whom Ex. C-3 had been marked had categorically deposed his inability to state whether the occupant under Ex. C. 3 was a male or a female etc. , and as such no pre-set assumption could even be made that Ex. C-3 was related to PW. 2; that this Court had declined to give the subjective and objective relief of co-relating Ex. C-3 and Ex. D-1 and with PW-2; that the only purpose of the Forensic Authorities was to give their opinion as to whether the signatures on Ex. C-3 and Ex. D. 1 were by one and the same person and it was not in their purview to identify any person/s related with the said two documents as presupposed by them as that of PW. 2; that even in the request letter dated 31. 5. 2004 of the Forensic Authorities, nothing had even been whispered as to, how, why and in what matter, were the said Authorities unable to submit and give an opinion as directed by the Court, which was mandatorily required to be made clear before seeking further information and details; that the petitions filed by the petitioner to set aside the said order as well as to stay the operation of the same till then, on the ground to explain as to how the same were maintainable, totally ignoring the fact that these petitions were in furtherance to not only doing justice, but also to see that justice is done, and especially when even the earlier Crl. M. P. No. 194 of 2004 to advance the hearing was ordered by the Court, just in order to comply with the orders of the High Court, and similarly the said two petitions were filed only to bring about the import of the earlier orders of this Court; that the other reasoning of the Court below are contrary to law and also the facts of the case.