'.s - y \.T-' / $^41 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2627/2011 DESHRAJ & ORS Petitioners Through l^r.S.C.Sagar, Adv. versus STATE Respondent Through IMr.Naveen Sharma, APP CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI ORDER % 10.08.2011 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 25.7.2011 passed by the learned I^M by virtue of which the application of the petitioners which had been filed under Section 172/173(5)/207 Cr.P.C. read with Section 141/155/165 of the Indian Evidence Act was rejected with certain observations. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that an FIR bearing no.547/96, u/S 498A/495/34 IPC was registered by P.S. Shahdara. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed ^ against the petitioner and they are facing trial. 3. During the course of trial, the prosecution exannined the complainant as PW-3. The Trial Court had requisitioned the file of the complainant as it contained certain allegations that were made by her against the petitioner to the Crime Against Women Signing Date:17.08.2024 16:51:44 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified t- Cell. These documents were exhibited as Ex.PW3/D to Ex.PW3/I and a copy thereof was supplied to the petitioners. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that these documents did not form a part of the charge sheet and therefore, could not be relied upon. 5. The second submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the exhibition of documents caused prejudice to him inasmuch as he was not aware as to what was contained in these documents at the time of cross examining the witness. 6. The learned Mi^ rejected the contention of the petitioners by observing that the copies of these documents were supplied to the petitioners at different stages, on couple of occasions and therefore, he was well aware of the contents of these documents. 7. In any case, it has been observed that the learned MM at the stage of disposal of the application cannot pass an order of de- exhibition in relation to the documents which had already been exhibited and has also accordingly given the liberty to raise such objections with regard to the admissibility and relevancy of these documents at the stage of final arguments. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the present petition. 9. The second subnnission made by the learned counsel for the . petitioners is that as a counter blast of his application, the prosecution had filed an application u/S 311 for the purpose of examining SI Kashmira Singh and SI Avtar Singh as the Court witnesses and the same was allowed. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also raised objections to the same. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the impugned order. 11. The application that has been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is totally innocuous and so far as the mentioning of Sections 141/155/165 of the Evidence Act are concerned, these are provisions of law which deal with the various contingencies while recording the statement of witnesses. These provisions only lay down the matter of procedure as to how the examination of witness is to be conducted. Section 141 of Indian Evidence Act defines what is the leading question. A question which is suggestive of an answer is considered to be a leading question. So far as Section 155 is concerned, it deals with the questions which can be put to a witness in order to demolish his credibility. Such questions may be with regard to his past conduct, character, etc. of the witness produced by a party. These questions can only be asked in cross examination 1 "7 because it is essentially for the defence or the opposite party who has not produced the witness. Similarly, Section 165 confers powers on the Judge to put any question which it may^ considered necessary in order to obtain relevant information from the witness. Therefore, the filing of an application by the petitioner by referring to these Sections was totally inappropriate. 12. So far as Section 172 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, it deals with the police diaries of a case and the same can only be used by the Court to aid it, in an inquiry or a trial but, it cannot be exhibited. The documents which have been exhibited in the instant case from the record of the Crime Against Women Cell are the complaints that were purported to have been made by the complainant during the pendency of her complaint as well as the recording of the DD Entries that were made in the register that was maintained by the office of Crime Against Women Cell. These provisions do not envisage filing of an application under these provisions. So far as Section 173 is concerned, that is dealing with the filing of the charge sheet or cancellation report and Section 207 deals with the supply of comes. I fail to understand as to how the application which has been filed by the petitioner is maintainable where so many provisions of the Cr.P.C. and the Evidence Act have been mentioned, on the contrary, if one sees the petitioner had grievance to the exhibition of certain documents but a careful reading of the order would show that his rights have been fully protected by the learned MM. It has been observed by the learned MM and rightly so that the documents which stand exhibited cannot be de-exhibited and therefore, he shall be at the liberty to raise all these points at the time of final arguments. Therefore, I feel that there is nothing wrong or illegal or improper in the order which has been passed by the Magistrate. 13. Further, the learned MM has summoned two witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. whom he felt would be able to throw some light on the matter in question. 14. The petitioner obviously will have a right to cross examine those two witnesses in this regard also. I feel that the order passed by the Magistrate does.not call for any interference. I feel that the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is totally bereft of any merit as there has been no gross abuse of the processes of law, which calls for interference by this Court. 15. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed. 1 / V.K. SHALI,J AUGUST 10, 2011 RN LL