ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the petitioner/accused to quash the order dated 15.03.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.404 of 2023 in Spl.SC.No.200 of 2018 on the file of Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum-II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

2. The Crl.M.P.No.404 of 2023 was filed by the Police, Maddur Police Station, under Section 294 of Cr.P.C., to mark C.D., in Spl.S.C.No.200 of 2018. The offences alleged against the petitioner/accused are under Sections 354 (A) (D), 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and under Section 3 (1) (s) (w) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 (As amended by Act No.1 of 2015). The trial Court examined Pws.1 to 7 and posted for the evidence of Lws.8 to 10. Pws.1 and 2 are the victim and husband of the victim respectively having whatsap messages and photos sent through the Mobile phone of accused to the complainant. The complainant converted the same from her mobile phone to C.D and handed over the same to him. On 14.06.2023 also, they have stated that earlier they did not hand over the same to the police during investigation and requested him to take steps. Therefore, the prosecution filed the said petition.

3. The petitioner/accused filed counter stating that if Crl.M.P.No.404 of 2023 is allowed, it amounts to filling up of latches to the prosecution case that too at a belated stage of the case. Hence, prayed the trial court to dismiss the petition stating that Pw.1 has not spoken anything with regard to C.D. and other whatsap conversations and voice messages. As such, allowing the petition amounts to filling up of gaps and also supported that Pw.1 categorically deposed that her caste does not fall under SC/ST category, that itself is sufficient and he cannot be tried under the Act No.1 of 2015. The said whatsap and voice messages do not belong to the accused and they were not sent by him and all the material is created for the purpose of case and the prosecution has no right to fill up the gaps at the belated stage.

4. The trial Court by relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs State of Gujarat1, held that merely receiving the document would not cause any

1 (2001) (3) SCC 1

prejudice to the respondent. The respondent can raise objection at the time of marking of documents and hence, allowed the petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the present quash petition is filed.

5. Heard Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Special Public Prosecutor has stated in the petition that CD was handed over to him but not to the investigating officer and the same is against the law and procedure. The investigating officer after completion of investigation has to submit final report along with the material collected during the course of investigation. He further contended that the observations made in Bipin Shantilal’s case, is for the civil case but not for the criminal case and it is the wrong finding of the trial Court that mere receiving of document would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. Further seeking two reliefs in one petition is not permissible as per Rule 128 of Criminal Rules of Practice (for short ‘Cr.P.C’). As such prayed the Court to allow this criminal petition by setting aside the order of the trial Court.

7. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that as the evidence is an important evidence `which is not collected during the course of investigation, it cannot be denied by the Court. As such, there is no error in the order passed by the trial Court.

8. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, it is seen that the trial Court has already examined Pws.1 to 7 in this case and the case i