THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI Criminal Petition No.14511 of 2024

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNSS’) challenging the order dated 18.11.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1225 of 2024 in M.C.No.3 of 2020 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kodad.

2. I have heard Mr. S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State and Mr.

C.Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the respondents No.2 and 3, i.e., the wife and daughter of the present petitioner, initiated maintenance proceedings by filing M.C. No. 3 of 2020 before the Court of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodad. During the pendency of that matter, they filed an interlocutory application seeking to introduce certain documents obtained from Sessions Case No. 170 of 2020. The trial court, relying on the precedent established in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat and Another, (2001) 3 SCC 1, permitted the documents to be received into evidence subject to proof, admissibility, and relevancy. Aggrieved by this interim order, the present petitioner filed the current petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order suffers from legal impropriety. The petitioner’s core contention in the maintenance proceedings is that the alleged marriage with respondent No. 2 is void, as he is already married and the purported second marriage conducted at the Arya Samaj is without legal standing. Further pleaded that, the petitioner had earlier filed Crl.M.P. No. 663 of 2023 seeking to introduce documents such as a marriage certificate, Aadhar cards, a birth certificate, and marriage photographs and through Crl.M.P. No. 664 of 2023 sought to recall PW-1 for marking the said documents and these applications were allowed on 26.12.2023.

5. Whereupon, the petitioner filed criminal petitions Crl.P. Nos. 316 and 317 of 2024, challenging the trial court's orders. This Court, by a common order dated 27.08.2024, held that the Photostat copies of the documents in question were inadmissible in evidence, although permitted the trial court to recall PW-1 for marking the documents if the originals were produced and this decision attained finality.

6. Against this backdrop, Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 filed Crl.M.P. No. 1225 of 2024 to introduce certified copies of the documents claiming that they are secured from the file of Sessions Case. The petitioner opposed the petition on the grounds that the Sessions Case is still pending and that the certified copies in question are derived from unmarked Photostat documents which had not been admitted as exhibits. He further contended that these certified copies are not primary evidence and are thus inadmissible. Additionally this court in the common order dated 27.08.2024 passed in the earlier Criminal petitions directed to allow the petitioners to examine the PW1 upon filing original documents only. That apart, emphasized that an RTI response confirmed that the certified copies were issued against attested photocopies but not the original documents, hence rendering the certified copies of dubious evidentiary value.

7. Furthermore contended that the court below overstepped its jurisdiction by recalling PW-1 and posting the matter for further chief examination on 28.11.2024, even though the application only sought permission to receive documents. The petitioner criticized the trial court’s observation that, since originals were filed in the criminal case, the certified copies could be accepted characterizing this as a premature expression of opinion that may prejudice the case. Accordingly, the petitioner prays for setting aside the impugned order.

8. In response, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 contended that the trial