URGENT ADVICE NEEDED ON CR P C 91 dismissal in 498A/406 case----common to many of us
Seniors, members pls ADVICE,
This is common for most of us.........many could be helped including me.... so pls give your valuable advice..
My challan (final report/ charge-sheet) was filed in Sep' 12 , i filed an application 91 CR P C in court and mentioned that the investigation was biased and i mentioned that police did not enclosed the evidences and applications filed with the Police before the chalan was filed. I gave to them during investigation. Some applications/ complaints including request for fair and proper investigation, RTI replies , police commissioner circulars for fair and proper investigation and some court citations were given even before the FIR. That I have the acknowledgement on every document from the Police.
I had also filed written arguments u/s 91 CR P C along with case laws.
Current stage: Charges not framed, next hearing arguments on charge/ discharge applications pending before the court
I had requested the judge that these docs got evidential value and argued that the IO with malafide intention and in collusion with the de-facto complainant has not produced them on records with the charge-sheet etc etc..
I had been seeking docs u/s 91 CR P C which are already part of the file (my docs) and were in posession of the Police- IO since year' 2011-12.
That some evidences were filed with my Anticipatory Bail (AB) application with annexures in April'12 and we filed 3 copies at the filing section of the court 1 for the judge, 1 for PP and 1 for the IO and since the IO had in posession some evidences attached with the AB he should have investigated and then filed the charge-sheet. That the charge-sheet does not have a single paper of mine and not plcaed in the judicary file.
i have been told you can bring the same at the time of defence.
That the IO states in writing that the docs asked by the accused has nothing to do with the FIR, complaint and nothing to do with investigation. Also, PP/ opposite counsel has attached 1 judgment from Apex court i.e SC i.e. State of Orissa vs Debendra Nath Padhi : 2005 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 297 which states that accused has no right to produce any material at the time of framing charges or taking cognizance. It also mentions that accused cannot seek any aid of Section 91 CrPC at this stage.
Is it that accused documents are not attached with the charge-sheet and his evidences given by him to police during investigation and AB will be discarded.
Among the evidences one includes Hotel bill (marriage exp) borne by us but claimed by the opposite party in their LIST. That the bill is in our name and the opposite party/ State has attached any doc in this regard. That there are many other evidences that directly refutes their claim and shows that its a frivolous LIST etc..
******************
Reason for the excercise: That the docs can help me at this stage - - - that our applicatons and evidences were neither seen nor fair investigation done rather its tainted & manipulated and false case filed.
******************
QUERY:
MY QUERY IS WHETHER TO GO FOR REVISION IN THE SESSIONS OR WRIT IN THE HIGH COURT with some HC and SC citations OR NOT GO FOR ANYTHING IN REGARD TO DISMISSAL OF CR P C 91 APPLICATION.
OR THAT MY PURPOSE IS SOLVED SINCE I HAVE ATTACHED THE SAID DOCS WITH THE DISCHARGE APPLICATIONS OF MY PARENTS SO WHY ASK THE IO TO ATTACH WITH THE CHARGE-SHEET, I SHOULD WAIT FOR THE ARGUMENTS AND IF CHARGES FRAMED LET IT BE FRAMED.
WHY I AM RAISING THIS QUESTION IS THAT according to my understanding the arguments for discharge will consists of what of all docs the prosecution sends u/s 173 cr p c and since there is limited scope u/s 239 CR P C for the docs send by the prosecution but u/s 227 cr p c defence docs are also seen at the discharge stage (however it is a session court trial) and the docs that were in their possesion before the charge-sheet is filed inclusive of the docs given by the accused.
******************
Below IS THE ORDER GIVEN BY the MM:
I am doing work of link MM as well.
Present. Ld. APP for State.
Accused .........in person.
Remaining accused exempted till further orders.
Today matter is listed for clarifications / orders on the
application u/s 91 Cr.P.C moved on behalf of the accused .............
Reply to the application has been filed by the IO.
Arguments on the application were heard.
Accused submits that certain documents i.e anticipatory
bail application with list of documents exhibited in April 2012 is not
included as part of the charge sheet.
Accused submits that these applications / synopsis /
documents are of evidential value in this case and hence, he has
requested that the IO be directed to furnish documents on record.
Reply filed by the IO / SHO perused.
Ld. APP submits that the present FIR has been registered
on the complaint filed by the complainant and all the
contents have been investigated and after investigation, this charge sheet
was filed on 04.9.2012 and is pending trial. Documents required by the
accused are not contents of the FIR. He has also mentioned other
documents i.e his complaint / applications filed with the PS ...........
along with the complaint / application by the co accused ............... is
mentioned in the application have not been made part of the record.
Also, reply to the list has not been made part of the charge sheet by the
IO. The previous marriage dispute details and photographs and affidavit
of relatives, details of the phone calls and hotel bills which were
annexed by the accused that the anticipatory bail application have not
been made part of the charge sheet by the IO and not related to the
complaint of the complainant or to the investigation of this case.
Ld. APP submits that in case he wishes to use
information / documents before the Court in his defence at the time of
trial, he can get the same summoned from the concerned Court.
Documents, if any, as alleged by the accused were filed by him before
the Ld. Sessions Court at the time of moving anticipatory bailapplication and the same may be available in records of the Ld. Sessions
Court.
Ld. APP submits that it is not a case that the IO to call
records of the Ld. Sessions Court and in case accused wishes to get the
same summoned for his defence, he can do so by moving appropriate
application at the time of his defence.
Heard. File perused.
From the application moved by the accused, it is clear that
he has mentioned that he moved documents for anticipatory bail
application which is part of the record with the Ld. Sessions Court.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the matter
and investigation is already complete to record which accused is asking
for his part of the bail application filed by him with the Sessions court at
the time of anticipatory bail which in case he wishes, he can get
summoned for his defence at the relevant stage. Hence, this application
u/s 91 Cr.P.C moved on behalf of the accused at this stage is uncalled for
. Hence, application stands dismissed.
