SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(HP) 470

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
 
Kamaljeet Kaur - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P - Respondent
Cr.MMO No. 691 of 2022 & Cr.MP No. 4787 of 2023
Decided on: 01-01-2024
 

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Ms. Reeta Hingmang, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Addl. A.Gs and Ms.
Leena Guleria, Dy. A.G.  Mr. Pramod Thakur, Advocate

A Magistrate's summons for documents or witnesses must show direct relevance to the case; irrelevant requests may be denied to prevent fishing inquiries.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Complaint under Sections 354 and 354B IPC - Petition challenging refusal to summon additional witnesses - Court held that the evidence produced was sufficient, and that the documents sought lacked relevance to the allegations. The complainant's attempt to broaden the inquiry was deemed inappropriate. (Paras 10, 24, 30, 32, 34)

(B) Legal Standard - The Magistrate may only summon documents or witnesses that are relevant to the investigation or inquiry. Sufficient compliance with the requirement of the Code may be achieved without producing a summoned person if the document is produced accordingly. (Paras 30, 32)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed for setting aside two orders regarding the refusal to summon witnesses in a complaint alleging molestation. The police had submitted cancellation reports without prosecution. Aggrieved, the petitioner sought additional evidence, which was denied based on irrelevance.

Findings of Court:
The evidence produced by present witnesses sufficed for the case. Additional witness requests were unfounded and did not contribute meaningfully to the inquiry.

Issues: Whether the revision petition was maintainable and if the additional witnesses sought were relevant to the case at hand.

Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner’s request was not upheld as the existing evidence was determined adequate. The court reiterated that inquiries must remain focused on the specific allegations presented.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

1. Petitioner-Kamaljeet Kaur has filed the present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’), with a prayer to set aside order dated 26.03.2022 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial Court’), in complaint No. 15 of 2021 and the order dated 09.06.2022 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. in Criminal Revision No. 4 of 2022 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Revisional Court’).

2. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition before this Court, as emerges from the record, may be summed up, as under:-

2.1. Petitioner Kamaljeet Kaur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant’) has filed an application under Section156(3) Cr.P.C before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur. In the said complaint, a prayer has been made to register FIR under Sections 354 and 354B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’). The said complaint was assigned to learned trial Court, which has passed the order on 04.12.2018. The relevant portion the order dated 04.12.2018, is reproduced as under:-

“Thus, this Court deemed it appropriate to direct the police authorities for carrying out the investigation in the present case. The application after due completion and registration be consigned to record room. On filing of report of SHO concerned be tagged with report. Copy of this order be sent to SHO, PS, Sadar Hamirpur, H.P. along-with copy of present application for compliance.”

2.2. In pursuance of the said order, the police has registered the case FIR No. 296 of 2018 dated 13.12.2018 under Sections 354 and 354B IPC with Police Station Sadar Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P.

2.3. During investigation, the police had taken into possession the shirt allegedly worn by the complainant at the time of alleged incident and the statements of the witnesses were also recorded.

2.4. During investigation, the police had produced the complainant before the learned trial Court for recording statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C on 27.12.2018, however, she has refused to make a statement.

2.5. Thereafter, the police has prepared the cancellation report and submitted before the learned trial Court. The notices of concrete report were issued to the complainant, who had filed her objections. Those objections were considered and the learned trial Court has directed the police to further investigate the case. The relevant portion the order dated 16.06.2020, is reproduced as under:-

“Thus, in view of detailed discussions made herein- above, the objections filed by the complainant/victim are sustainable. Further investigations be carried out in the present case FIR by some another Investigating Officer. Copy of this order along with police file be sent to SHO, Police Station Sadar, District Hamirpur, (H.P.) for compliance, whereas record of this Court be consigned to the record room for tagging with the record of CNR No. HPHA020044992018, Cr.M.A No. 1520/2018 decided by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.III, District Hamirpur, (H.P.).”

2.6. Thereafter, police has again conducted the investigation and submitted the cancellation report on 28.10.2020.

2.7. Against the said cancellation report, notices were again issued to the complainant, in which, the complainant has filed the objections. Those objections were considered by the Court of learned JMFC, Court No.IV, Hamirpur vide order dated 17.07.2021, the learned JMFC, Court No.IV, Hamirpur has decided to proceed further under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the complainant was directed to adduce her evidence, by filing list of witnesses, in support of the objections/protest petition on 26.08.2021.

3. In pursuance of order dated 26.08.2021, the complainant herself has appeared and made the statement. Thereaft

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top