MEHMOOD HASSAN Vs. ILLIAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 04.01.2016 (Annexure P-2) passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurgaon to the extent of it rejected the application of the petitioner/complainant filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for permitting him/prosecution to adduce the additional evidence in Criminal Complaint No.225 dated 19.03.2009/ Case No.246/19.08.2015 under Section 500 IPC, titled as Mehmood Hassan Vs. Illias and others pending before it.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondents were the prosecution witnesses in some criminal case for an offence under Section 307 IPC. They had made statements before the court as witnesses in those proceedings. The petitioner perceived those statements to be defamatory against him. As a result, the petitioner initiated the criminal complaint under Section 500 of the IPC, involving all the respondents as the accused. During the proceedings of the trial, the evidence of the petitioner/complainant was completed. Thereafter, the respondents produced their defence witnesses. No document was tendered by the respondents in the defence evidence. But, subsequently the counsel for the respondents/accused tendered certain documents in defence evidence and closed the defence evidence. However, at the time of tendering of these documents and exhibiting the same, no fresh witness was produced or examined by the respondents/accused. The petitioner claims that during the inspection of the file, he found that certain documents have been placed on record of the file, some of which are shown to have been exhibited and some of them are only marked documents. Since these documents were not exhibited during the testimony of the witnesses of the defence, therefore, the petitioner had not got any opportunity to put questions regarding these documents to the witnesses of the defence. Hence, the petitioner moved two applications before the trial court. First application was regarding placing on record certain pleadings/orders of the court emerging in civil proceedings. The second application was moved by the petitioner for the purpose of rebutting the documents, which the defense had tendered at the time of closure of their evidence. The trial court allowed the first application of the petitioner. However, the second application was declined by the trial court. Against this order the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that through the above said method the defence have placed on record certain documents showing that they had earlier filed some proceedings before the High Court regarding investigation of still another FIR and in that proceeding this court had directed further investigation by a senior officer. However, the petitioner had not got any opportunity to rebut these documents or to cross-examine the witnesses of the defence regarding these documents. It is further submitted that the information, placed on record by the defence, through above said documents, which the petitioner wanted to rebut, was incomplete. In fact, after this court had passed the order on petition of the respondents qua further investigation, the said investigation was conducted and even the cancellation report was filed by the police. The defense had withheld this information from the court. The petitioner wanted to bring those documents on record; by way of his second application. It is further contended that since the petitioner is required to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the petitioner has to be granted a fair opportunity to rebut the documents tendered by the defence. Still further, it is contended that the court below has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner by adopting the wrong criterion, which was not even meant for consideration of an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.