IN_THE HQN'BLE HIGHCQIUKTQF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P 227 No;)"°.2010 PETITIONER CP{^.L^i^i Ayiff&f'if- Pradeep Jain S/o Late Pancham Lal Jain R/o RESPONDENTS . /^ \Dy.^f .f. ^>wf^ ,\^ry ^KW ...<?^-'-' <: . ;y .J^' <£' House No. 109, housing Board Colony P.S. Mohan Nagar, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. Versus 1. Shri. M.D. Tiwari Town Inspector, Office OfS.P. Durg, Present Address- M.D. Tiwari S/o Late Moti Lal Tiwari, age 63 years, occupation - Retired public servant ,R/o Plot No. 11,12 Priyadarshini Nagar ( near Vyapar Vihar) Tehsail and District- Bilaspur(C.G.). 2. Shri. R.K.Rai Asst. Sub- Inspector of Police, P.S. Supela, District- Burg (G.G.) .Present Address- Shri. R.K. Rai S/o Late G, Rai , age 62 years, occupation — Retired Govemment Public Servant, R/o Block No. 8/B, Street 43, Sector 7, Bhilai, Tehsil & District- Durg, (C.G.). 3. Shri. R.P. Sharma, City Superintendent of Police, P.S. Chhaoni, Bhilai, District- Durg, (C.G.) Present Address- Shri. R.P. Sharma S/o Late Bhagirathi Sharma, age 63 years, Occupation - Retired Public Servant R/o P.W.D. 8, P.S. Bhilai Nagar, Sector -6, Tehsil & District- Durg ( C.G) . 4. State of M.P. Now Chhattisgarh through CollectorDurg(C.G). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. CERTIORARY ETC, 1. PARTICULAR OF THE PETITIONER. '•% . • : ' '. • ••.•'•'.. • • .,.. ~ ' As mentioned in the cause title above.. lt,Ul;t;tllili.i.!ili!te-.fcte;l;i--.?. v &B: K®<m' SShiAiRrii^ariyKuiinflif^sIuFa W.I>.f227^N<).1t'736a010 PETITIONEIt : Praaee|»Jam •.- "•"'Versus. ': RES>OND]@<'FS : SahriM.D.ThvariandofliCTs Apoearance: ShnlJtteffiBaad^txmnSetj^ ShrrJiten(lraGupta,counseIforTes^^ Shri S^ewAgw^^Pwi^Uw^ No.4.' • : :. /- ! :-: :'; , :1.: '. :^' / ^' . :'1':"', ^wRii'ipEaaffi^sMlitt^fiiiiLi^ ?::^ciiiitfftian% BiK @ :.'1-: ORAEORBER •••^: :.;,';::'';:^ .•,-'i. •, (06.09.2010) Ift this petitku undefwticle 227 ofthe Gonstituticm the petitioner4)laintiff is assailing ti»otder passed by tiie trial court disallowmg certoin questions asked by Ae jriaintiff's lawyer to Ihe defendaat, &fe MJ). Tiwari^who pres^^ course oftrial. (2) The plaintifffaasfiledthe ^^comp^ prosecuticm a^mstthedefendi^ ^ prosecutedoit^seacGusatienfoTxi^fei^^^u^ Ac^ 1985andAattev^subs»queatly itsjudgmeDtofacquittatda^T^Jime^l^ /No.64/l995.::;l •• '^ •:..:: '..::.;^C (3) In course ofcross-exammatipriofdefenclaat^^ Tiwan, ecwnsel ^theplamtifFwant^to^ havebem disaUowedtmdififa'entsteges.They^a^ (a) Wftether the witaess is aware ofthe^^s^^ one AnandDasduring criminaltrial? (b) WhatisthedelayinpreseBtingtiie surt? (c) Wfaafc^ths fe<te and circumstarices whi concealed in the (riaint? (d) What are tfae lapses committ^^^ prosiecution^^m criinmaltrial? (4) Leara^ <»unsel ^^^ questkffls are relevant and shouldncrt have been disallowed byt^ trialJudge. (5) Learned counsel i^ fhe respDndeats would m unpugned orderis int^ocutory^in natuNandl^ outcomeofthesiutandltoAetrialcourthasriglit^observed^that the questions are notrelevant. (6) Thefirstquesticmposedtothewitaiessis&te^ in filing the Si^/ Tfais questum has n^ltly b^ 4isa^^ the plaintifiFis supposedlB pleadthe accn^ of^^^c^ tfie yimtation would N decided ou^tiie^basis 6f pleadmgs df tfie parties. . :••::•'.. :: >: \ •'L. •.•..•: •.;.1---::.,..:.:, -.':::;.' .: (7) The seeond question v^ abcto ^ fiute aad^^^^ whichawordingto the^defendant, Ae^i^i^^ .rf.-*.i*'< <. plaint.Thisagam isaquestipn^^^ tiie cross-KKumnation, because if tiie de&ndant fails to clarify tiie defects in theplaint, it is tiie plaintiffwfao would ultimately succeed. (8) The third c|uestioH is about the lapses committed by tfae prosecution in the criminal case. The lapses CQmmitfed by the prosecution will be pointed out by the plaintiff who sued for malicious prosecutionaad he cannot compel the defendanf fo pomt outtiie lapses whichwillultimatelybeusedagaiDSttfaedefendant. (9) AnothCT question wasabout the statement made by one AtiMid Dasduring1lwcrimmattrial.WitnessM.D;TiwTOisiiot^^s^^ knowwhatwitaessAnandDashaddeposedduringcriminaltrid.The question was not relevant and the trial court rightiy disallowed the saidquestion. (10) Leamed couhsel for the petitiotler submits that lapses have been mentioned in the written statemenl, ifthat be K), asfcing ofthis question againwas notrelevant. (11) The trial court has only disallowed some questionsand has not passed aay order whieh affeets the out cotne ofthe suit; The order is piu'cly interiocutoiy. (12) In tiie matter ofCdina Goelho Pereira (Ms) and ofliers Vs. UDias Mahahaleshwar Kholkar uril bihers reported in (2010) 1 SCC 217, Supreme eourt has laid down priiiciples fbr exercise of jurisdicti(munderartide227oftheConstftuticmofItidi^ K M •passirasip ^qaraqsi pUBsiiBj aoppad (t?i) •Biptqjouoptniisaoojo^^api^iBjspan sjaMod jo SSKU9X3 ui 93U9^ia(m jcg asB34g B v>u si tussMd sift isipiioronio aipjo sitmoosnp 'saidpuud pies ai^SuiAjddBco (£l) ^ -^-