HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3098/2021

Mahendra Singh Tanwar S/o Late Shri Sohan Singh, R/o Ringas

Road, Chomu, Distt. Jaipur.

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Cbi Special Public Prosecutor

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sharma, Adv. for

CBI through VC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Judgment

Judgment Reserved on : 14/07/2021

Date of Pronouncement : 20/07/2021

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for

quashing and setting aside the order dated 16.04.2021 passed by

learned Additional Session Judge (SC/ST Cases) Sawai Madhopur

in Session Case No.42/11 titled as State Vs. Satyanarayan & Ors.

in which learned Judge has rejected the application filed by the

petitioner for summoning defence witnesses and documents in his

defence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned trial

court has erred in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner

for summoning witnesses and documents. Learned counsel for the

petitioner also submits that prosecution witness has given

evidence of strained relations between petitioner and Phool Mohd.

from 18.03.2010 and onwards. Learned trial court has only

(2 of 3)

[CRLMP-3098/2021]

required to see whether evidence of defence was relevant to the

case and not to examine merits or demerits of the evidence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that learned trial

court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner without

application of mind.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that

witnesses are Government Servants, petitioner can’t present them

in evidence, so, they should be summoned by the court. Learned

counsel for the petitioner also submits that as per the section 233

Cr.P.C., application filed by the petitioner only be refused on the

ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for

defeating the ends of justice.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that learned

trial court had not come to the conclusion that the application filed

by the petitioner is for the purpose of vexation or delay. Learned

counsel for the petitioner also submits that petitioner has right to

fair trial, so, the petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and

order of trial court be set aside.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the

judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of (1) T.

Nagappa Vs. Y.R. Muralidhar reported in (2008) 5 SCC 633;

(2) Kalyani Baskar (Mrs.) Vs. M. S. Sampoornam (Mrs.)

reported in (2007) 2 SCC 258; (3) P.S. Rajya Vs. State of

Bihar reported in (1996) 9 SCC 1; (4) Manju Devi Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Anr. reported in (2019) 6 SCC 203 and (5) V. K.

Mishra & Anr. Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. reported in

(2015) 9 SCC 588.

Learned Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and

(3 of 3)

[CRLMP-3098/2021]

submitted that previously, learned counsel for the petitioner also

filed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. which was rejected

by the trial court and petition filed before this Court was also

rejected. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the

petitioner wants to delay the matter, so, he has furnished the

huge list of the witnesses and documents. Learned counsel for the

respondent also submits that the witnesses and documents which

are to be summoned by the petitioner are not relevant to this

case. So, the trial court rightly rejected the application filed by the

petitioner.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent.

The accused petitioner has right to fair trial. As per the

section 233 Cr.P.C. application for summoning of witnesses and

documents be dismissed when the application is file