IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CTM.P._NQ. ^^ /2011 (S.B.) 'S-^H'Oil^ ^i^'n^ih 'v.fS-'^s S ^tu, f ^ D.K. Rao, S/o Late Chandrika Rao, aged about 37 years, R/o Flat No. 202 Gitanjali Enclave, Ring Road No. 2, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS Ramkishore Kaushik, S/o Shri Prahlad Singh Kaushik, aged about 37 years, R/o Village and Post Sipat, P.S. 85 Tahsil Sipat, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.). APPLICATION UNDERSECTION 482'OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PETITIONER ACCUSED p.R. Na..——-1'" prew^dli'<sto;KM^ RESPONDENT COMPLAINANT -HC—78 sn^?i ^i k-A'h '?Pff 4ii^<r a»*th> H11WI Sb'Wdl 3^ •<i]<iici'4, ®-al-Li<i<B,fadl'yy ..C^.^.:.^.J±^..^ 200 31I^['T?^ ('i?(3»(<i.<?) TOTiwafei 3ii^i SB : Hon'ble Shrl ManindraJKohan ShrI'pastRva, J. 23.11.2011 Shri. Subhash Yadav, coi Heard on admission. Sectilon Sessiotis Tbis petition under the petitioner against order (^ leamed 2nd Additional dated 9.2.2011 passed by rejectmg petitioner applicatio4 been afBrmed. Leamed counsel for fhe of fhe petitioner to effectivell uapeach his credibility, has fhat at the tuae when the c| exAiined, original and releve| thei coniplainant was documents. Later on, fhe Sectioa 294 of the Cr.P.C. caBuig upon the coinplainanl) those documents, but ftie ienuineness of those docuiaeti <t>I<lt^T<fhl ^lffiCtl* ^f fs^ <^t^$[< ^aifinsii^i nsel for the petitioner. 482 ofthe Cr.P.C. has been ffled by ated 15th September 2011 passed by Judge in revision, by which order the Judicial Magistrate First Class uader Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. has ictitioner submits that a valuable right { cross-examiae the complainaat, to ?een denied. Learaed counsel argued >mplaiiiant was examined and cross- nt docuiuents were not available and with fhe photocopies of the moved an. appUcation under oducing onginals of those docuraents to adniit or deny fhe genuineness of complainant did not dispute the Lts. Therefore, fhe petitioner sioved an contrdverted p^titioner pijod •^:-f<>~ •^.- ..-••"y '•^^^;,^" Al-J ai^T'W^TR; '!''n3tt^T9BTifef ^ST ^wwif, ®rtly<i(o,fiidiy^'l. NIKWI WRira» TFI.200 Sf^V H^qi (' TOiraT'Bfeian^i application for granting him fhe complauiant tn order documents and lus signature; rejecting application, the peti fhe opportunity to extract th< of signature on fhose docunietits The order passed by appUcation of fhe petitioner petitioner's appUcation und< upon fhe coiuplainant to dei was not dispute) fhose docuiuents. Therefore, complaihaut who has alreldyl petitioner had an opportu^ opportunity of cross-exaiiiin^ with fhe photocopy of the Court, fhe reason assignecf application, cannot be said tj: so as to warrant interferencel wfll be no prejudice caused allowed to agaia cross-f recorded by fhe Courts belo\^ qi!*i[ci4lt ^w^ ^ fe%T Tfof^R ^'siRnan^r ^ne niore opportunity to cross-exacaiae jjo controvert hun wifh the original appended ftiereon. He submits that by [ioner has been seriously prejudiced, as evidence with regard to the admission has been denied. fh.e Courts below reveal fhat the Ijias been rejected by recording that fhe dr Section 294 of the Cr.P.C., caBing bv or admit fhe genuiaeness of certaia Id and the coinplamant has adiuitted |t is not necessary to agaia suuimon fhe been examiaed, particularly when the tuty and fhe petitioner availed that ^.tion of coraplainant controverting him jaid doczunents. In fh.e opinion of fhis by fhe Court below to reject the be irrelevaat or in any manner fllegal by this Court. I am satisfied that fhere »the petitioner in fhe event he is not exajmine the complamant because, as fhe com.plainant has not disputed fhe E-HC—78 T^ ^WWi, ®t)l-M'l(o,feTRTgT a'iT^l^TftpfW •a'nw^'aiiaqi Pra-veea HiNwr wrrei •Wf 200 3H^?T'tI5R7 ('^°rf3^(T) irenw^fefai^r 3. ^?<4f<?f^l''T •4F'q?lf ^ 'fe^t' ^i'affiprsntff genuineness of original docu^ients fUed by flie petitioner along with his application under SectioE situation, such docuinents h£ signature of tfae person n consequences, having already not necessary for the petitio^ier to cross-exaiuiae the complaiaant any more. I fhe result, I do not ( wifh the orders passed by ftxe 294 of tfae Cr.P.C. Obviously, in such (s to be led in evidence wifhout j)roof of fho has singed it. Wifh such legal flown, in the opinion offhis Court, it is onsider it to be necessary to interfere Court below. The petition has no m^rit. The saine deserves to be dismissed and is accordinglydismissed.) -' ManindraMohanShrivastava