Crl.Rev.No.1172 of 2010 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Rev.No.1172 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on: April 26, 2010. Promila .. Petitioner VERSUS Jeet Singh Mehra and others .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.S.S.Kharb, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The petitioner is a complainant in a case under Section 420, 216 & 376 IPC, registered against respondent Jeet Singh and another. She had moved an application for summoning the Service Book of the respondent who is stated to be in civil service in the office Chief Secretary, in order to establish that he was actually married to Ravi Kanta. He developed physical relations with her and committed sexual offence against her. The petitioner claims that the accused has, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. recorded on 24.04.2009, tried to substantiate his evidence in defence to the effect that he was not married to Ravi Kanta but she . . . 1 Crl.Rev.No.1172 of 2010 (O&M) was given the liberty to use his name as her husband and in fact there was nothing between them as husband and wife. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the service record is necessary to falsify the defence put forth by the accused. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner, at length, in context to the nature of the allegations against the accused and I am of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application as the FIR pertains to the year 2004. The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has already been recorded and the defence evidence of the accused is in progress. In this case, the allegations under Sections 376 and 420 IPC are to be substantiated by the evidence which has already been produced by the prosecution agency. In case a false defence has been taken by the accused regarding his marital status, the same can be established by thoroughly cross-examining the defence witnesses and confronting the witnesses with documents which are, as per the complaint, sufficient to defeat the false defence put forth by the respondent. The prosecution witnesses especially the complainant cannot be permitted to summon the witnesses who would falsify the defence evidence in advance. No ground is made out for interference. The petition is dismissed. However, it will be open to the prosecution agency or the complainant to confront any document prepared by them in accordance with law falsifying the defence put . . . 2 Crl.Rev.No.1172 of 2010 (O&M) forth by the accused Counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments has not cited any authority but after the order was pronounced, he requested that two authorities, namely, Rama Paswan and others Vs.State of Jharkhand, 2007 (2) RCR (Crl.), Page 717 and Iddar & Ors. Vs. Aabida, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.), Page 909, be also taken into consideration. In Rama Paswan and others, (supra), the trial Court had summoned a Court witness and when the said order was challenged in High Court the order was upheld. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referring to the scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C., explained that it is only the prerogative of the Court to examine such of those witnesses as it considers absolutely necessary for doing justice between the State and the subject and the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C., is discretionary. There is no dispute regarding the scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C. The circumstances of the present case are absolutely different from Rama Paswan and others' (supra). The said authority is absolutely not applicable to the facts of this case. Here the application of the complainant is absolutely baseless and seems to be a device to prolong the litigation and an attempt to produce rebuttal evidence to the probable defence evidence which is sought to be produced by the accused. So far as the judgment in case Iddar & Ors. (supra), is concerned, the said judgment merely examines the well established scope of Section 311 Cr.P.C. Counsel for the petitioner . . . 3 Crl.Rev.No.1172 of 2010 (O&M) has not been able to satisfy this Court as to how the said judgment is applicable to the facts of the present case. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE April 26, 2010. rka . . . 4