Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh has quashed the FIR, based on the documents submitted by Defense.
Kunaldev Singh Rathor and others Vs State of MP and another on 02 December, 2016[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Another awesome judgment emphasizing that “there is no scope for the accused to produce any evidence in support of the submissions made on his behalf at the stage of framing of charge and only such material as are indicated in Section 227 Cr.P.C. can be taken into consideration by the learned magistrate at that stage”.
Justice Markandey Katju notes:
As observed by this Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Anr. vs. N.R. Vairamani & Anr AIR 2004 SC 4778, observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid’s formula nor as provisions of the statute. Thus in our opinion while it is true that ordinarily defense material cannot be looked into by the Court while framing of the charge in view of D.N. Padhi’s case (supra), there may be some very rare and exceptional cases where some defense material when shown to the trial court would convincingly demonstrate that the prosecution version is totally absurd or preposterous, and in such very rare cases the defense material can be looked into by the Court at the time of framing of the charges or taking cognizance.
18. In our opinion, therefore, it cannot be said as an absolute proposition that under no circumstances can the Court look into the material produced by the defense at the time of framing of the charges, though this should be done in very rare cases, i.e. where the defense produces some material which convincingly demonstrates that the whole prosecution case is totally absurd or totally concocted. We agree with Shri Lalit that in some very rare cases the Court is justified in looking into the material produced by the defense at the time of framing of the charges, if such material convincingly establishes that the whole prosecution version is totally absurd, preposterous or concocted.
Justice Altamas Kabir notes:
Rukmini Narvekar Vs Vijay Sataredkar & Ors on 3 October, 2008In my view, therefore, there is no scope for the accused to produce any evidence in support of the submissions made on his behalf at the stage of framing of charge and only such material as are indicated in Section 227 Cr.P.C. can be taken into consideration by the learned magistrate at that stage. However, in a proceeding taken therefrom under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the Court is free to consider material that may be produced on behalf of the accused to arrive at a decision whether the charge as framed could be maintained. This, in my view, appears to be the intention of the legislature in wording Sections 227 and 228 the way in which they have been worded and as explained in Debendra Nath Padhi’s case (supra) by the larger Bench to which the very same question had been referred.
A key question is clarified by the 3-judge bench of Supreme Court in this landmark judgment.
Can the trial court at the time of framing of charge consider material filed by the accused?
The scope of Sections 227 and 228 and scope of Sections 239 and 240 are explained along with scope of Sections 482
At the end the following is the summary arrived at.
Legal point around application under/of CrPC 91
State Of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi on 29 November, 2004In so far as the accused is concerned, his entitlement to seek order under Section 91 would ordinarily not come till the stage of defence. When the section talks of the document being necessary and desirable, it is implicit that necessity and desirability is to be examined considering the stage when such a prayer for summoning and production is made and the party who makes it whether police or accused. If under Section 227 what is necessary and relevant is only the record produced in terms of Section 173 of the Code, the accused cannot at that stage invoke Section 91 to seek production of any document to show his innocence. Under Section 91 summons for production of document can be issued by Court and under a written order an officer in charge of police station can also direct production thereof. Section 91 does not confer any right on the accused to produce document in his possession to prove his defence. Section 91 presupposes that when the document is not produced process may be initiated to compel production thereof.
Citations : [2005 AIR SC 359], [2005 ALT CRI 1 1198], [2005 CLT SC 99 348], [2005 GLH 1 312], [2004 JT SC 10 303], [2005 KLT SC 1 80], [2005 OLR SC 1 357], [2005 RLW SC 3 414], [2004 SCALE 10 50], [2005 SCC 1 568], [2005 SCC CRI 415], [2004 SLT 7 339], [2004 SUPREME 8 568], [2005 OCR 30 177], [2005 RCR CRI 1 297], [2005 CALCRILR 1 487], [2005 CRIMES SC 1 1], [2004 AIR SCW 6813], [2005 CTC SC 1 134]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/7496/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae0be4b0149711412c9f
Index of Quash judgments u/s 482 are here.
Bad Behavior has blocked 598 access attempts in the last 7 days.
