Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.
Ramesh Khatri – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and Another – Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous (M) No. 44253 of 2016
Decided On : 18-07-2019
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order dismissing his application for production of documents and CCTV footage.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order dismissing his application for production of documents and CCTV footage. The trial court and the revisional court both dismissed the application. The petitioner argued that the application should have been entertained as he can produce the desired documents during his defense evidence. The courts held that at the stage of framing of charge, the accused has no right to produce any material. The petitioner's application was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The courts below have rightly held that at the time of framing of charge, the accused has no right to produce any evidence. The petitioner can obtain the documents referred to in the application under the RTI Act and can put them to the prosecution witnesses at the relevant time. The application does not have any bearing on the present case as the incident pertains to beating the principal/complainant. The judgment in V.K. Shashikala's case deals with the right of an accused to produce documents at the time of recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., which is not applicable in this case. Therefore, the present petition is dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of framing of charge, the accused has no right to produce any material. The accused can obtain the relevant documents and produce them during his defense evidence. The right to produce documents under Section 91 Cr.P.C. does not arise until the stage of defense.
Result: The present petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.
1. Prayer in the present petition, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing the order dated 17.05.2016, passed by the trial Court in case FIR No. 295/2015, under Sections 323, 506, 341 and 509 of the IPC, registered at Police Station City Sonipat, vide which, an application, filed by the petitioner, under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for production of some documents and CCTV footage, was dismissed, as well as the order dated 04.11.2016, passed by the revisional Court, dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner.
2. The present petition was initially filed and represented in person, however, later on, a legal aid counsel was provided to the petitioner to assist the Court on his behalf.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the present FIR was registered against the petitioner for wrongfully restraining the procession of the Private Schools Association, which was going to meet Deputy Commissioner, Sonipat on 21.05.2015 in order to give a memorandum against the damage caused by the guardians in Spring Birds School, Sonipat. It was also stated in the FIR that the petitioner used indecent language and gave beatings to the complainant i.e. Principal of Shambu Dayal Modern School, Sonipat and also extended threat to the members of the Private Schools Association.
4. The police, after completion of the investigation, submitted a challan against the petitioner and at the stage when the case was fixed for framing of charge, the petitioner moved an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for production of documents/CCTV footage as detailed below:
(ii) CCTV Footage of the office of SDO (Civil) Sonepat from 21.5.2015 to 27.05.2015.
(iii) Staff attendance register of Shambhu Dayal Modern School, Sonepat w.e.f. 12.06.2014 to 12.10.2015 pertaining to the applicant/accused and adjustment register from the school.
(iv) Service book along with ACR of the applicant/accused from the office of Shambhu Dayal Modern School, Sonepat through its Administrator-SDM, Sonepat.
(v) File regarding departmental inquiry in respect of incident dated 21.05.2015 in connection with the FIR No. 295 dated 27.05.2015, u/s 294, 323, 341 and 506 IPC, P.S. City Sonepat, conducted by Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Administrator, Shambhu Dayal Modern School, Sonepat vide which the applicant was suspended on 05.06.2015 and terminated by the principal from the post with immediate effect vide termination letter No. 8817/15 dated 12.10.2015.
(vi) Complaint made by the complainant Ramesh Khatri to Superintendent of Police, Sonepat, District Magistrate, Sonepat, CM Window/N/2015/60581, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sonepat and Additional Deputy Commissioner dated 21.05.2015 against Principal Sh. R.K. Sharma, Ms. Neetu Arora and Police officials.
(vii) Complaint made by complainant to I.G. Police Rohtak Range, Rohtak dated 28.08.2015, 11.08.2015.
(viii) Copy of permission regarding raising procession under Section 134A of the RTE Act, on 21.05.2015 against the government i.e. to gherao the Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat from SDM-cum-Administrator of Shambhu Dayal Modern School, Sonepat.
(ix) Record of case titled State versus Ramesh Khatri.
5. The trial Court, thereafter, vide order dated 17.05.2016, dismissed the aforesaid application by passing the following order:
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
