1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.Through this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the complainant petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 14.2.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate No. 12, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The petitioner moved an application on 10.10.2003 in criminal case No. 308/2001 for summoning original record of the civil suit No. 45/96 decided by the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 25.7.2001. The petitioner wanted to get exhibited the original documents viz., the letters dated 27.3.1994 and 6.4.1996 (copies of which were already available on record) before her evidence could be adduced in the criminal case instituted on her complaint against the accused respondents involving offence under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 1206 1PC. Her allegation in the complaint, the categorical terms, was that aforementioned two documents were forged and fabricated at the instance of accused persons, it was stated that entire inscription of the letter dated 27.3.94 and her signatures thereon were forged. Likewise, another document dated 6.4.96 also contained forged signature of the complainant petitioner. Therefore, these two letters being the back bone of the criminal case instituted by the complainant were essential to be summoned and exhibited.

2. The learned Magistrate vide his order impugned in this petition has dismissed the petitioner's application solely on the ground that the petitioner has not stated in her application the details of the documents sought to be summoned nor has stated as to how these documents are relevant in evidence.A glance at the impugned order reflects that the learned Magistrate, in the impugned order, has noted down the details of the documents alleged to be ground and fabricated at the instance of accused respondents and which are stated to be the subject matter of the controversy in the present criminal case involving offence of forgery etc.

3. That apart, the complainant in her complaint has specifically mentioned that the letters dated 27.3.1994 and 6.4.1996 were forged and fabricated at the instance of accused persons. It was mentioned that entire inscription in the letter dated 27.3.94 and her signatures thereon were formed. Similarly, another letter dated 6.4.96 contained forged signature of the complainant. The hand writing export has also confirmed about these two documents being forged. In the circumstances, therefore, the aforesaid two documents alleged to be forged and fabricated at the instance of accused respondents, which relate to the criminal offence in question were all the more necessary to be summoned, lying on the record of the suit, referred to above. As such, the prayer made by the complainant in her application dated 10.10.2002 appears to be innocuous. A perusal of the impugned order shows that learned Magistrate has dealt with the complainant's application in a very casual manner, inasmuch as the impugned order is self contradictory and has been passed without application of mind. The learned Magistrate must have perceived the entire situation in proper perspective. Having failed to do so, the impugned order has occasioned a failure of justice and caused serious prejudice to the complainant, warranting interference by this court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC.

4. In the result, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed: The impugned order dated 14.2.2003 passed by the learned trial court is set aside. The application of the complainant petitioner dated 10.10.2002 is allowed and the trial court is directed to summon the original documents as pried for in her application.Petition allowed.

*******