At, High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
For the Petitioner: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, Anoop Dhand, Advocates. For the Respondents: Jitendra Shrimali, Public Prosecutor.
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the order dated 08.10.2015, whereby petitioner has been charged for the offences under Sections 451, 354 IPC by the trial Court be set aside along with order dated 21.06.2016 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Sikar, who while exercising revisional p
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
wers has affirmed the order passed by the trial Court.2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that complainant Smt. Shankari Devi W/o Shankar Lal on 02.08.2009 had lodged a report that petitioner had made an attempt to outrage her modesty. She further stated that petitioner had trespassed into her house to commit the said offence. Petitioner has raised a plea that he is a police constable and at the relevant time was posted in the Office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Circle Fatehpur, Sikar and was performing his duties. The plea of alibi has been raised by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1789/2012 and on 30.05.2012 a coordinate Bench of this Court had passed the following order:-"Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of this petition with liberty to the petitioner to raise all the objections by way of the application at the stage of the charge arguments, which he has raised through this petition. He submits that the court concerned be directed to decide the application first and then proceed further, which is not opposed by the learned PP.The criminal misc. petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty and direction. The stay application also stands dismissed."3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that documents in favour of the petitioner have not been considered by the trial Court and the charges have been framed in a mechanical manner. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni, (2000) 6 SCC 338, to contend that under the orders passed by the High Court, documents made available by the accused during investigation can be taken into consideration by the trial Court while framing charges.4. The law laid in the case State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni (supra) no longer hold the field. A three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2003)2 SCC 711, had overruled the case of Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration And Another, (1996) 9 SCC 766. The Supreme Court in case of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (supra) also considered the law laid in State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni (supra). Besides the above contention raised by the petitioner, it is settled legal position that who craves for exception, has to prove the same to the hilt. The documents produced by the petitioner are not per se admissible. Hence, the witnesses are required to be examined to prove the documents to prove the alibi. It cannot be ruled out that testimony of the witnesses examined by the accused in defence can be shattered by learned Public Prosecutor by rendering cross-examination. Therefore, no interference is warranted. The better course for petitioner is to prove his plea of alibi by leading defence evidence.5. Hence, present petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.Petition dismissed.
"2017 (3) CriCC 160, 2017 (5) RCR(Cri) 61,"