The duty of the prosecution to bring all relevant evidence before the trial court for fair justice, independent of the choices of the prosecutor or accused, and the right of the accused to defend and prove innocence with cogent and reliable evidence at the subsequent stage of defense.

JUDGMENT

G.D. Saxena, J:- Having been aggrieved by the directions issue by the order dated 1/8/12 in Misc. Cri. Case No. 1430/2012 (Baijnath Singh Vs. State of M.P. & another) which are produced below, the petitioner has knocked the doors of this court with a request for exercising powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice:-

" Consequently, the impugned order dated 11/11/11 is quashed. The petition stands hereby allowed: The application filed on behalf of petitioner under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. is also allowed (which apparently by mistake or typographical error is mentioning the words " on behalf of the accused -petitioner", whereas it was filed by the interested party in trial against the accused - respondent No. 2, herein). It is directed that the learned I trial court shall summon the statements mentioned in the application filed by the petitioner through the Investigating Agency and thereafter proceed with the matter in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made during the course of this order."

2. In the present petition before this court, the petitioner prays for the reliefs as following:-

" It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed and order dated 01.08.2012 passed by this Hon'ble Court in MCRC No. 1430/2012 may kindly be reviewed and heard on merits by giving opportunity to the petitioner."

3. On perusal of the record of Misc. Cr. Case No. 1430/2012, it appears that on 1st August, 2012, after having heard the learned counsel for petitioner/ interested party as well as learned Public Prosecutor appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 1 /State, admittedly without issuing notice to respondent No. 2- accused, this court passed the order which is called in question.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the respondent No. 2 has no locus standi to participate by way of petition under section 301 of the Cr.P.C. in trial against the accused and also by moving previous petition before this court. He has no locus standi to file the petition under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. for calling the statements of the witnesses stated to have been recorded in investigation but not filed with the charge sheets by the I.O. under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that no such petition was filed with consent of the prosecutor before the trial court. In these circumstances, the learned trial court has not committed any mistake in rejecting the prayer of the respondent No. 2 which ultimately was allowed by this court in a petition so preferred, hence, this petition.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No. 1-State, as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2/accused, on the other hand, submitted that although the Inquiry Officer at earlier point of time, at that time of inquiry into marg, recorded the statements of Baijnath Singh Guraia, Roop Singh and Vinod, but during investigation concluded that there was inimical terms of these witnesses with the accused and so their statements are not relevant. On this ground, the statements of those witnesses were kept aside from the investigation and the charge sheet on the available evidence as collected for offense punishable under Section 306 of I.PC. was filled. Consequently, that trial court framed the charges on the basis of material available by the I.O. It is submitted that in compliance of the order of this court in a petition, the statements of the aforesaid witnesses were taken on record which disclosed prima facie offence against the accused under Section 302/304 of I.PC. Under such circumstances, the charge for the alleged offence is framed against the petitioner / accused vide impugned order. On these grounds, it is prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, State as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent No