VIJAYMADANLAL CHOUDHARY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C seeks to quash the order dated 15.05.2018 passed by the Special Judge, CBI in Special Case No.03/2017, by which an application filed by the petitioner under section 294 Cr.P.C has been dismissed.

(2.) In Special Case No.03/17, charge sheet under sections 120-B, 420, 467, 471 read with section 468 IPC had been filed against the petitioner. While the matter was fixed for arguments on the charge, an application under section 294 Cr.P.C was filed by the petitioner. By this application, it was intended to confront the complaint/prosecution regarding financial dealings between the accused and the complaints so that the accused may bring out the fact that the complainants had not disclosed about their such financial dealings and made a false complaint against the accused. As per the petitioner, this opportunity under section 294 Cr.P.C was denied to him on the basis that the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568 did not permit doing so. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of Debendra Nath Padhi (supra) does not pertain to section 294 Cr.P.C and that there is no hindrance in filing the application at any stage. He further submits that after the judgment of Debendra Nath Padhi (supra), other judgments in the case of Rukmini Narvekar vs. Vijaya Satardekar and others 2011 AIR (SC) (Cri.) 1825, Nitya Dharmananda and another vs. Sri Gopal Sheelum Reddy (2018) 2 SCC 93 and further Vinod Kumar vs. State of Haryana 1987 (1) RCR (Cri.) 222, have done away with the restrictions contained in Debendra Nath Padhi's case. It has been argued that as per Nitya Dharmananda's case (supra), if some documents of sterling quality are available with the accused and which were not considered by the Investigating Agency, the same can be relied upon by the Court at the stage of framing charge. It has been further argued that the legislature has not put any fetters on the invocation of section 294 of the Cr.P.C and it is not desirable to limit the exercise of such powers only after framing of charges.

(3.) In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the main question which arises for consideration before this Court is whether the impugned order is, prima facie, erroneous and deserves to be stayed and whether the petition deserves to be admitted.