Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 3104
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. MALA, J.
Ganesh Pandi & Ors. - Petitioners
Vs.
State rep. by the Inspector of Police & Ors. - Respondent
CRL.O.P.(MD)No.16931 of 2015 & M.P(MD).No.1 of 2015
Decided On : 12.10.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. S. Durairaj
For the Respondent:Mr. P. Kannithevan Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
Only the Court and Investigating Officer are entitled to peruse the Case Diary, and the petitioners may obtain a copy from the Court.
Headnote:
Section 91(1) Cr.P.C - Production of Case Diaries - The court dismissed the petitioners' application to call for the records in order to prove their defense, stating that only the Court and Investigating Officer are entitled to peruse the Case Diary, and the petitioners may obtain a copy from the Court. The trial Court's decision was upheld, finding no illegality in the order passed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to set aside the order of the trial Court, which dismissed their application under Section 91(1) Cr.P.C to call for the records in order to prove their defense in a criminal trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial Court had rightly dismissed the petitioners' application, considering that only the Court and Investigating Officer are entitled to peruse the Case Diary, and the petitioners may obtain a copy from the Court.
Issues: The issue revolved around the petitioners' entitlement to call for the records under Section 91(1) Cr.P.C to prove their defense in a criminal trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners' mala fide to drag on the proceedings was evident in their filing of the application under Section 91(1) Cr.P.C after the examination of a witness, and that the trial Court had rightly considered all aspects and dismissed the application.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition and the connected miscellaneous petition were dismissed.
The petitioners have come forward with this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking a direction to set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Additional Mahila) Court, Tirunelveli, dated 23.07.2015 made in Cr.M.P.No. 351 of 2015 in C.C.No.104 of 2013.
2. Even though the matter was posted under the caption 'for dismissal', the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner appeared and advanced his arguments.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners filed an application under Section 91 (1) Cr.P.C, to call for the records in Crime No.163 of 2011 on the file of Uthumalai Police Station and Crime No.80 of 2012 on the file of the respondent police, stating that the production of the Case Diaries in those cases, is necessary to prove their defence that on the basis of the complaint given by one Amudha, they are facing criminal trial for the offences under Sections 506(2) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, and the said complaints were only by way of wrecking vengeance against the petitioners. However, the trial Court dismissed the said application stating that the petitioners are not entitled to call for the records and they have not perused the Case Diaries and hence, he prays for setting aside the order passed by the trial Court.
4. Considering the rival submissions and also on perusal of the documents in C.C.No.104 of 2013, it is seen that after examination of the Investigating Officer, the petitioners/A. 1 and A.2 came forward with the application under Section 91(1) Cr.P.C seeking for production of Case Diaries pertaining to Oothumalai Police Station in Crime No.163 of 2011 and Devarkulam Police Station in Crime No.80 of 2012, to prove that there was previous enmity between them. Except the Court and Investigating Officer, no one is entitled to peruse the Case Diary to prove the evidence he may very well entitle to get a certified copy of FIR, charge sheet, complaint and produced before the Court.
5. In such circumstances, the petitioners may very well obtain the copy from the Court. But without doing so, after examination of PW6, the petitioners filed an application under Section 91(1) Cr.P.C., before the trial Court, which shows their mala fide to drag on the proceedings. The trial Court has rightly considered the all aspect and dismissed the same. Hence, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the trial Court.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
