ANIL MALOO AND ORS. Vs. NITIN KASERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall govern disposal of application filed by the applicants under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. which is directed against the order passed by learned JMFC, Ujjain in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1213/2010, dated 6-8-2014 whereby, learned Magistrate allowed the application filed by the complainant dated 5-5-2014 and ordered to summon some witnesses. Brief facts relevant for disposal of this application are that a private complaint was filed by the respondent against the applicants under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of IPC along with list of witnesses. After recording the evidence before charge, learned Magistrate discharged some of the accused however, he proceeded against the present applicants and framed charge under Section 420 of IPC. After framing of the charges, the complainant/respondent was further cross-examined and after his cross-examination was over, the application was filed on 5-5-2014 requesting learned Lower Court to issue summons to the Officer of Makhanlal Chaturvedi University and also from State Bank to produce the documents. Learned Magistrate by the impugned order dated 6-8-2014 allowed the application and ordered that on deposition of Rs. 1000/- each towards diet money of the witnesses, summons may be issued.

(2.) Aggrieved by this order, present application is filed on the ground that under the scheme of Cr.P.C., the complainant was allowed to file list of witnesses under Section 204(2) of Cr.P.C. only once and he is not allowed to file supplementary list of the witnesses under any of the provision of law.

(3.) In this case, the application was filed by the complainant on 17-2-2012 and along with the application he filed list of documents and copies of the documents, which were allowed to be taken on record by the learned Magistrate. It is said that along with application list of the documents and copies of the documents he also filed supplementary list of the witnesses but the order sheet dated 17-2-2012 did not mention this list which was, however, admittedly, found on the record of the Lower Court. Counsel for the applicants submits that present applicants had no knowledge of the list. They were taken by surprise and as such as there is no provision of supplementary list the impugned order is illegal and against the provision of law and liable to be set aside.