Jawahar Vs. Rajendra

Jawahar vs Rajendra

Type Court Judgment Court Mumbai Nagpur Decided Apr 11, 2016

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1184759

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1184759
Court: Mumbai Nagpur High Court
Judge: Z.A. Haq
Decided On: Apr 11, 2016
Case Number: Criminal Writ Petition No. 960 of 2015
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jawahar

Respondent

Rajendra

Excerpt

.....is recorded. at this stage, the petitioner/ complainant has filed application seeking permission to produce certain documents on the record. the application is rejected by the learned magistrate observing that the documents which are being sought to be produced are not relevant and are inadmissible being photocopies. 5. the learned advocate for the respondent has pointed out the copies of the documents which are being sought to be produced by the petitioner and has submitted that there is nothing in the documents which can be said to be relevant for the purposes of deciding the complaint filed by the petitioner. 6. after considering the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner and considering the facts on record, in my view, the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to produce copies of the documents on record could not have been rejected on the ground that the documents are not relevant and they are inadmissible being photocopies. 7. hence, the following order : i) the impugned order is set aside. ii) the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to produce copies of the documents on record is allowed. iii) the learned magistrate shall consider the relevance and admissibility of the documents at an appropriate stage after giving opportunity to the petitioner to prove the relevance and admissibility of the documents according to law. rule is made absolute in the above terms. in the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

Full Judgment

Oral Judgment:

1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The petitioner/complainant has challenged the order passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to place on record certain documents to substantiate the averments made in the complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondent.

4. The petitioner has filed complaint against the respondent praying that he be prosecuted and convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate has proceeded with the prosecution and evidence of the complainant is recorded. At this stage, the petitioner/ complainant has filed application seeking permission to produce certain documents on the record. The application is rejected by the learned Magistrate observing that the documents which are being sought to be produced are not relevant and are inadmissible being photocopies.

5. The learned advocate for the respondent has pointed out the copies of the documents which are being sought to be produced by the petitioner and has submitted that there is nothing in the documents which can be said to be relevant for the purposes of deciding the complaint filed by the petitioner.

6. After considering the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner and considering the facts on record, in my view, the application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to produce copies of the documents on record could not have been rejected on the ground that the documents are not relevant and they are inadmissible being photocopies.

7. Hence, the following order :

i) The impugned order is set aside.

ii) The application filed by the petitioner seeking permission to produce copies of the documents on record is allowed.

iii) The learned Magistrate shall consider the relevance and admissibility of the documents at an appropriate stage after giving opportunity to the petitioner to prove the relevance and admissibility of the documents according to law.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

Same Court & Year Mumbai Nagpur · 2016 Same Parties Jawahar vs Rajendra Same Subject Right to Information Same Judge Z.A. Haq

Right to Information According to law penal code set aside