This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioners/accused 1 to 5 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in Crl.P.M.P. No.5884 of 2014 in CC No.956 of 2007 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberbad, Kukatpally, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 IPC.

2) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 and learned public prosecutor for 1st respondent-state before admission and before ordering any notice to de facto complainant – 2nd respondent. Perused the FIR and the petition averments.

3) As there are no grounds to admit the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C and the same is disposed of with the following observation:

Receiving of a document is some what different to the marking of a document as per the propositions of law. Even police did not collect the documents as part of the investigation before filing charge sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C in the form of final report and even it enables the police later under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. if not by intimation to, at best with permission of, the Magistrate concerned to collect and submit supplementary charge sheet showing further investigation, as per the settled law that is not the be all and all. It is to say, that scope is entirely different and that no way curtails the power of the Court to receive any document or to summon any witness for investigation under Section 311 Cr.P.C apart from the power of the Court under Section 165 of the Evidence Act. The scope of law is well considered in the expression of this Court in Crl.R.C No.1276 of 2014 dated 10.10.2014. Therefrom to say, once the lower Court exercised its discretion in allowing the application filed by the public prosecutor even not mentioning the said provisions in receiving the so called copies of documents, there is nothing to interfere for no other contention to answer on the scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C or Section 165 of the Evidence Act.

No doubt the other contention is that without factual foundation about existence of original, the secondary evidence could not be permitted to let in and when there is no secondary evidence that is admissible the receiving of the documents is not tenable so as to set aside the impugned order. As referred supra besides Section 165 of the Evidence Act, in trial of warrant cases Sections 230 r/w 231 or 242 (2) or 244 (2) or 254 Cr.P.C also enable the Court from nature of the case trial respectively to receive any application for filing or production of document or summoning of witness to produce the document and/ or to give evidence on behalf of prosecution and equally on behalf of defence respectively under Sections 233 (3) or 243 (2) or 247 r/w 243 or 254 Cr.P.C as the case may be. Coming to decide whether laid foundation for secondary evidence in the Criminal proceeding referred to the provisions supra, to receive at the stage where, when and how to decide; the Apex Court categorically laid down with guidelines to all the Courts as follow as law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution of India (particularly in criminal cases) in Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs. State of Gujarat (AIR 2001 SC 1148) that any objection regarding admissibility or relevancy to be raised while marking the document to mark subject to said objection, in order to decide such objection ultimately after completion of trial and not instantly but for touching requirement of stamp duty and registration or the like. No doubt, it is further laid down in the subsequent expressions of the Apex Court that the objection relation to admissibility of secondary evidence if not raised while marking, since the same is a procedural aspect, being made of proof and later it can be raised as deemed waived as such exhibited document without such objection is as good as original, but for to decide other objections relating to admissibility, relevancy and on proof under Section 68 of the Evidence Act or the like vide R.V.E Venkata