Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Manjula Ramlal Barot, filed a criminal complaint against respondents No.1 to 5 for offences under Sections 347, 348, 386, 395, 506(ii) read with Sections 120-B, 34 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint alleged that the respondents forcibly took possession of the premises where the complainant was residing. During the proceedings, the petitioner filed an application seeking a direction from the Magistrate for the production of a document from the respondents-accused. The Magistrate rejected this application. The petitioner then challenged this order by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court, after considering the brief facts, held that the document sought was not relevant to the proceedings and that the application was filed at a belated stage. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Magistrate's order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Production of Documents - Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Article 227 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner challenged the order of the Magistrate rejecting her application for production of a document from the accused. The Court held that the document was not relevant to the proceedings and the application was filed at a belated stage. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Magistrate was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner seeking direction for production of a document from the respondents-accused.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed.
Law Points
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973
- Relevance of documents
- Power of Magistrate to order production of documents
Case Details
Criminal Writ Petition No. 234 of 1996
Mr.A.G. Sabnis, Sr.Advocate for the Petitioner; Mr.Shirish Gupte, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Amit Joshi i/b. Nankani and Associates for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3; Mr.Ashok Mundargi with Mr.Ganesh Gole i/b. Mr.Arpan Rajput for Respondent Nos.4 and 5; Mr.Rajeshree M. Gadhavi & Y.S. Shinde, APPs for the State.
Iswarlal P. Barot, Jugaldas P. Barot, Kamlesh J. Barot, Ranjit Bhanu, Rajadhyaksha, The State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging the order of the Magistrate rejecting an application for production of a document.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought a direction from the Magistrate for the production of a document from the respondents-accused.
Filing Reason
The petitioner alleged that the respondents forcibly took possession of the premises where she was residing.
Previous Decisions
The Magistrate rejected the application for production of the document.
Issues
Whether the Magistrate was justified in rejecting the application for production of the document.
Ratio Decidendi
The document sought was not relevant to the proceedings and the application was filed at a belated stage.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition which is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Magistrate in C.C.No.47/S/84 whereby the learned Magistrate was pleased to reject the application filed by the petitioner seeking direction from the Magistrate for the production of a document from the respondents No.1 to 5 - original accused.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a criminal complaint in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate against respondents No.1 to 5. During the proceedings, the petitioner filed an application for production of a document, which was rejected by the Magistrate. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 227
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 347, 348, 386, 395, 506(ii), 120-B, 34, 114
