BIRI BHAGAT Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has questioned the legality of the order dated 27.4.2015 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga in G.R. No. 446 of 2014 whereby and whereunder, the court below has directed Devan Parha Samiti to produce the documents which were filed by the complainant -informant on different dates before the said Committee and also the documents relating to the decision taken by that committee. At the instance of the complain -ant -Sumitra Toppo, one complaint was filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla which was sent to the officer -in -charge of Lohardaga (Mahila) Police Station for institution and investigation. Whereafter, Lohardaga (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 36 of 2014 was instituted under Sec. 498 -A, 495, 307, 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code with the allegation that the marriage of the informant -complainant was solemnized with this petitioner on 19.5.2013 and after marriage, she went to her matrimonial house where she came to know that the petitioner had earlier solemnized his marriage with one Asha Jyoti Toppo, who was a nurse but as their relationship was not cordial due to regular torture of Asha Jyoti Toppo, the petitioner solemnized his second marriage with the present informant who is a teacher in a Government School. It is also alleged that the petitioner on several occasions assaulted her and also coerced her to part her salary and also developed an illicit relationship with one Sunita Oraon. On several dates as given in the complaint petition, she was assaulted by the petitioner and even he tried to kill her but anyhow she could save herself and informed the Raja Parha Samiti on 13.7.2014 where it was resolved that the petitioner will not go to the house of Sunita Oraon and will reside with the informant but as there was no change in the attitude of the petitioner, this case was lodged.

(2.) The police after due investigation submitted the charge -sheet against the petitioner under Ss. 323, 341, 494 and 498 -A of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, charges were framed and the prosecution examined all the six witnesses. Thereafter, on 31.3.2015, a petition was filed by the prosecution enclosing some photocopies of documents and pleaded that due to laches in the investigation, these documents, which were relevant to the case, could not be collected by the Investigating Officers. Hence, the prayer was to issue Dasti Summon to the Devan Parha Samiti, Lohardaga with direction to produce those original documents in Court.

(3.) The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the said petition stating therein that the prosecution has not disclosed the source from where she obtained the photocopies of the aforesaid documents, which appears to be forged and fabricated. The informant obtained those documents by practicing fraud upon the said committee. It is also stated in the petition that during investigation, no such document was produced before the Investigating Officer. Hence, those documents cannot be taken into evidence against the petitioner at the fag end of the trial.