(1) The parties to any proceeding under this Code in which a commission is issued may respectively forward any interrogatories in writing which the Court or Magistrate directing the commission may think relevant to the issue, and it shall be lawful for the Magistrate, Court or officer to whom the commission, is directed, or to whom the duty of executing it is delegated, to examine the witness upon such interrogatories.
(2) Any such party may appear before such magistrate, Court or Officer by pleader, or if not in custody, in person, and may examine, cross-examine and re-examine (as the case may be) the said witness.
Author: ShadesOfKnife
MS Ram Pravesh Rai Estate (P) Ltd Vs Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh @ Munna on 12 Jan 2016
Single Bench of Patna High Court held as follows, regarding interrogatories and their usage.
From Para 13,
13. Now coming to floor, it is apparent that object and purpose of serving interrogatories is to enable a party to require information from his opponent for the purpose of maintaining his own case and for destroying the case of the adversary and as such, it not only shorten the trial proceeding, save time of the court, it also deliverance the party from expenses, consumption of time as well as burden to collect and produce evidences. Side by side, it should always be guarded in a way to prevent misuse. Furthermore, as is apparent, it should be confined to the facts which are relevant to the matters in question in the suit. However, under Order-XI Rule 6, 7 the grounds have been enumerated whereupon interrogatories could be refused.
Basically, it has been settled at rest by different judicial pronouncement as:-
(i) A party is not entitled to administer interrogatories for obtaining discovery of facts which constitute exclusively the evidence of his adversary‟s case or title.
(ii) A party is not entitled to interrogate as to any confidential communications between his opponent and his legal adviser.
(iii) A party is not entitled to execute interrogatories which would involve disclosures injurious to public interest
Other sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/32984899/
Sewa Singh Vs Surjit Kaur on 14 Feb 2012
Interrogatories are allowed in the DV cases and they are independent of Written Statement/Counter filing. Such Interrogatories have to be disposed off in 7 days from filing.
The observations made by the learned trial Judge appear to be stringent and contrary to the provisions of CPC, as in view of the amendment of CPC w.e.f. July 1, 2002, it is mandatory for a Court to decide an application forleave to deliver interrogatories within a period of seven days from the date of filing of the said application. There is no provision warranting that stay could be granted merely for non-filing of the written statement.
And then…
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the defendant- petitioner wants to delay the filing of written statement on the pretext that an application for interrogatories under Order 11 Rule 4 CPC has been submitted before the trial Court. I have gone through the interrogatories. The interrogatories only seek to get a reply from the plaintiff- wife pertaining to an earlier application having been filed by her under the Domestic Violence Act, she being owner of properties mentioned in para Nos. 2 to 5 of the interrogatories. There is nothing mentioned in the interrogatories which could create an obstacle in fling of the written statement. Defendant- petitioner can conveniently take up a plea regarding plaintiff- respondent being owner of particular property disentitling her to any relief under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act while contesting her claim of permanent injunction. Besides this, obligation to file written statement is not subject to the adjudication of the application for interrogatories. There is an independent obligation on the part of the Court to decide the interrogatories within a period of seven days as per provisions of Order 11 Rule 2 CPC.
Other sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/94382253/
CrPC 249 – Absence of complainant
When the proceedings have been instituted upon complaint, and on any day fixed for the hearing of the case, the complainant is absent, and the offence may be lawfully compounded or is not a cognizable offence, the Magistrate may, in his discretion, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, at any time before the charge has been framed, discharge the accused.
CrPC 248 – Acquittal or conviction
(1) If, in any case under this Chapter in which a charge has been framed, the Magistrate finds the accused not guilty, he shall record an order of acquittal.
(2) Where, in any case under this Chapter, the Magistrate finds the accused guilty, but does not proceed in accordance with the provisions of section 325 or section 360, he shall, after hearing the accused on the question of sentence, pass sentence upon him according to law.
(3) Where, in any case under this Chapter, a previous conviction is charged under the provisions of sub-section (7) of section 211 and the accused does not admit that he has been previously convicted as alleged in the charge, the Magistrate may, after he has convicted the said accused, take evidence in respect of the alleged previous conviction, and shall record a finding thereon:
Provided that no such charge shall be read out by the Magistrate nor shall the accused be asked to plead thereto nor shall the previous conviction be referred to by the prosecution or in any evidence adduced by it, unless and until the accused has been convicted under sub-section (2).
CrPC 258 – Power to stop proceedings in certain cases
In any summons-case instituted otherwise than upon complaint, a Magistrate of the first class or, with the previous sanction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, any other Judicial Magistrate, may, for reasons to be recorded by him, stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, and such release shall have the effect of discharge.
CrPC 257 – Withdrawal of complaint
If a complainant, at any time before a final order is passed in any case under this Chapter, satisfies the Magistrate that there are sufficient grounds for permitting him to withdraw his complaint against the accused, or if there be more than one accused, against all or any of them, the Magistrate may permit him to withdraw the same, and shall thereupon acquit the accused against whom the complaint is so withdrawn.
CrPC 252 – Conviction on plea of guilty
If the accused pleads guilty, the Magistrate shall record the plea as nearly as possible in the words used by the accused and may, in his discretion, convict him thereon.
CrPC 204 – Issue of process
(1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be—
(a) a summons-case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or
(b) a warrant-case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction.
(2) No summons or warrant shall be issued against the accused under sub-section (1) until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed.
(3) In a proceeding instituted upon a complaint made in writing, every summons or warrant issued under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint.
(4) When by any law for the time being in force any process-fees or other fees are payable, no process shall be issued until the fees are paid and, if such fees are not paid within a reasonable time, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint.
(5) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of section 87.
List of overturned Convictions of False Litigation
This compilation is intended to show the irreparable lose to people who get falsely accused and get convicted for misjudgment of Courts.
India:
Supreme Court: 23 year later
Orissa High Court: 21 years later
https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/orissa-hc-sets-aside-21-year-old-murder-conviction
