[2025:RJ-JP:4668]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5653/2024 Sarita Nath D/o Mahendra Amarnath, R/o Gorakhnath Saw Mill, Mawadi Gate Ke Bahar, Beavar, District - Beawar (Raj).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor.

2. Abhaynath Devda S/o Santoshnath Devda, R/o Sundar Vilas, Gali No. 2, Opposite - Subhash Udyan, Ajmer.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Atul Kumar Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor Mr. Mahendra Shandilya HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Order

03/02/2025

1. By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, the petitioner has made a prayer that the impugned order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the Court of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum- Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Beawar (for short "the trial Court") in Criminal Case No.297/2023 and also the order dated 01.05.2024 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Beawar (Ajmer) (for short "the Revisional Court") in Criminal Revision Petition No.02/2024 (wherein the order dated 15.12.2023 was challenged) be quashed and set aside and the documents filed alongwith the application dated

05.09.2023 be ordered to be taken on record.

2. During the course of arguments, the petitioner gave up the challenge to the order dated 01.05.2024 passed by the Revisional Court, fairly admitting the fact that the order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the learned trial Court is an interlocutory order, therefore, the Revisional Court has rightly dismissed the criminal revision petition, as the same is not maintainable.

3. Now the matter is being considered for challenge to the order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the learned trial Court.

4. Facts of the case are that during trial of the case for offences under 498-A and 406 IPC, as alleged against the accused/respondent, the complainant/petitioner filed an application on 05.09.2023 with a prayer to take on record the documents off the electronic media-facebook chat between the accused-respondent and some other girls, printouts of which were being submitted. It was stated in the petition that the accused- respondent submitted a reply to the application under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act filed by the complainant and disputed the genuineness of the documents being submitted on the ground that they do not fulfill the requirements as provided under law.

5. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 15.12.2023 dismissed the application filed by the complainant/petitioner under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents which are being submitted by the complainant/petitioner are substantial documents which requires proper appreciation with respect to the allegations levelled against the accused-petitioner. He also submits that the chat between the accused/respondent and the other girls clearly prove the allegations levelled against the accused/respondent. He further submits that the documents which are being submitted by the complainant are electronic documents of which printouts have been taken and there cannot be any doubt as to its genuineness.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the accused/respondent opposed the prayer and submits that the complainant-petitioner has only submitted an application under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act but there is no affidavit/certificate produced by the complainant as required under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. He further submits that in the application filed on 05.09.2023, no details have been given as to who took out printouts of the alleged chat. However, lateron a certificate in the name of Ankit Garg was submitted which seems to be an after thought of the affidavit and since there is no mention in the application as regards Ankit Garg, it creates a doubt about the said documents.

8. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material made available on record.