V.M. Pancholi, J.

1. This petition is filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 5-2-2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vadodara below application Exh. 49 in Misc. Criminal Application No. 9 of 2011 be quashed and set aside. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Maithili Mehta waives service of notice of Rule for respondent No. 1-State of Gujarat and learned Advocate Shri Ramnandan Singh waives service of Rule for respondent No. 2. With the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties this petition is taken up for final hearing forthwith.

2. Learned Advocate Shri Nasir Saiyed submitted that in the year 2008 respondent No. 2 had filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner and his parents for the offences punishable under Sees. 498A, 323, 504, 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code read with Secs. 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Investigating Officer carried out the investigation in the said matter, and thereafter, filed the charge-sheet. Thereafter, the concerned Court by way of a judgment and order dated 8-11-2012 was pleased to acquit the petitioner and other accused. In the meantime, the respondent No. 2 filed an application under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the petitioner and his parents on 14-3-2011. In the said proceedings examination-in-chief of respondent No. 2 came to be recorded by the learned Magistrate vide Exh. 32, and thereafter, she was cross-examined by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. Learned Advocate for the petitioner further submitted that during the course of cross-examination of respondent No. 2 she has stated that on 2-7-2008 the petitioner had given a fist blow upon her abdomen. However, she admits in her cross-examination that she came to know about the stone in her gallbladder in the year 2009. She has also admitted that she had not taken any treatment immediately in respect of the aforesaid alleged injury caused by the petitioner. In her cross-examination she has further admitted that in the proceedings initiated by her under Sees. 498A of the I.P.C. nor in the deposition given by her before the learned trial Court nor even in the proceedings initiated by her in the maintenance application she had at any point of time whatsoever stated nothing with regard to the aforesaid injury caused by the petitioner. Learned Advocate for the petitioner from the record pointed out that during the cross-examination, respondent No. 2 asked the learned Magistrate to permit her to produce a xerox copy of the discharge summary report with regard to treatment of stone in the gallbladder. Learned Advocate Shri Saiyed further submitted that when the aforesaid document was exhibited by the learned Magistrate, learned Advocate for the petitioner has taken objection for exhibiting the said xerox copy of discharge summary report by giving an application on 5-2-2014, and thereby requested the learned Magistrate to de-exhibit the said xerox copy of the document. However, learned Magistrate passed me impugned order by which the request of the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner has therefore, preferred this petition under Arts. 227 of me Constitution of India before this Court.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is illegal, erroneous and perverse, and merefore, the same may be quashed and set aside. Learned Advocate further submitted that the learned Magistrate has failed to consider me fact that on one hand respondent No. 2 has produced a xerox copy of the discharge summary report before the Court, and on the other hand, she has refused to examine the doctor who had given treatment to respondent No. 2, and therefore, in absence of production of the original documents, learned Magistrate ought not to have exhibited the said document. Learned Advocate alterna