1999 (2) TMI 728 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and correctness of the orders dated 1.2.1994 and 21.2.1995.
2. Quashing of proceedings arising from FIR No. 516/92.
3. Application under Sections 91 and 294 read with Section 311 of the Code for summoning documents and witnesses before framing of charges.

Summary:

Issue 1: Legality and Correctness of Orders Dated 1.2.1994 and 21.2.1995
The petitioner challenged the legality of the order dated 1.2.1994, which took cognizance of the offence against him, and the order dated 21.2.1995, which dismissed his applications u/s 294 read with Section 311 of the Code. The trial court dismissed the applications, stating that examining witnesses prior to framing charges would not serve the ends of justice.

Issue 2: Quashing of Proceedings Arising from FIR No. 516/92
The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings arising from FIR No. 516/92, arguing that the FIR/complaint could be dismissed if no case is made out or its continuance would amount to misuse of the process of the Court, causing unnecessary harassment to the accused. The court referenced several precedents (e.g., Smt. Nagawwa Vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, and State of Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal) to outline circumstances under which an FIR/complaint could be quashed.

Issue 3: Application Under Sections 91 and 294 Read with Section 311 of the Code
The petitioner filed applications under Sections 91 and 294 read with Section 311 of the Code for summoning documents and witnesses before framing charges. The court noted that Section 91 empowers the court to summon documents necessary for any inquiry, trial, or proceeding, while Section 311 allows summoning any person as a witness if their evidence is essential to the just decision of the case. The court held that these powers could be exercised even before framing charges and that the evidence produced could be considered for deciding whether a charge should be framed.

The court found that the trial court had not considered the relevant facts and legal position adequately. Therefore, the petition was allowed, the impugned order dated 21.2.1995 was set aside, and the trial court was directed to reconsider the application for production of documents and summoning of witnesses in light of the observations made.

Conclusion:
The petition was allowed, and the trial court was directed to reconsider the applications for summoning documents and witnesses. The petitioner was instructed to appear before the trial court on 4.3.1999.