Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 28627
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH ON THE 16th OF JANUARY, 2024 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 30593 of 2022 BETWEEN:- SHRISANTOSH KUMAR VYAS S/O SHRI AYODHYA PRASAD VYAS, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GOVT. SERVANT R/O VAISHALI NAGAR, SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH) .....APPLICANT (BY SHRI RAVI BHUSHAN SHUKLA -ADVOCATE) AND 1. SMT. RAMVATI BAI W/O LATE SHRI RAJESH BASOR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GOVT. SERVANT JYOTI NAGAR MAKRONIYA, DISTRICT- SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH) 2. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE STATION KOTWALI SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI SAURABH SINGH THAKUR -ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1, SHRI DEEPAK SAHU -PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT NO.2/STATE) This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
Ravi Bhushan Shukla,
ORDER
The petitioner has assailed the order dated 30.03.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar and the order dated 27.04.2022 passed by the VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in the context of allowing the complainant/prosecution to bring on record the report dated 16.06.2020 submitted by the Internal Complaint Committee.
The grievance of the petitioner is that on the subject in issue, the the complaint of respondent was enquired by the Internal Complaint Committee and the allegations were found to be false. Thereafter an application was filed for re-enquiry into the complaint and vide the aforesaid report dated 16.06.2020, the Internal Complaint Committee has found the petitioner to be guilty of the misconduct.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the report submitted by the Internal Complaint Committee on 16.06.2020 has no relevancy in the criminal case arising out of criminal complaint pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar, where the complainant has already concluded her evidence.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the document dated 16.06.2020 has been allowed to be brought on record at the instance of the complainant. Mere production/exhibition of the document does not dispense with proof of execution. At this stage, the document can be allowed to be placed on record, leaving the complainant to prove its validity/execution at the relevant time. If the court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the document is duly proved and is authentic enough to be considered then in such eventuality, the court can rely upon it, otherwise court would be at liberty to eschew the document, otherwise it would be an archaic practice as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujrat and others reported in (2001)3 SCC1. Looking to the controversy in question, this Court would make it clear that the exhibition of the document in no way would be sufficient to advance its admissibility. The document shall be considered by the Court on legal parameters on the basis of law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal (supra).
With these observation, the present petition is disposed of.
(RAJ MOHAN SINGH) JUDGE tarun JUDGE tarun
