- (1.)J. P. Semwal, J. The present application under Section 482, Cr PC has been filed by Suresh Chandra Bhardwaj, who is the complainant in Criminal Case No. 1364 of 1990-Suresh Chandra Bhardwaj v. Gopal Das Mudgal under Section 497, IPC, pending in the Court of IVth Addl. Chief Judicial Magis trate, Agra. The applicant has made a prayer that the IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra may be directed to take the evidence of the applicant as per application dated 2-1-1992 under Section 311, Cr PC (Annexure IX ).
(2.)I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have been taken through the record of the case. It would be relevant to set out the facts of this case which has driven the applicant to this Court under Section 482, Crpc. The applicant alleged himself to be the husband of Snot. Shakuntala Devi, who is the sister-in-law (Sail) of the opposite party Sri Gopal Das Mudgal The applicant had |filed |the complaint against the opposite party under Section 497 of the IPC alleging that his marriage was performed with Smt. Shakuntala Devi in February, 1973 according to the Hindu rites at Agra that his wife Smt. Shakuntala Devi without his permission went to her home in September 1973 and since 1976-77. She openly started living as the wife of opposite party Sri Gopal Das Mudgal and further that the said opposite party had cohabitation with Smt. Shakuntala Devi against the wishes of the applicant. It has also been alleged that on 2-1-1984 at about 4. 15 p. m. a female child was born at Maternity Ward, Women Hospital Dhaulpur (Rajasthan) and the said Smt. Shakuntala Devi got her name entered in the Hospital record as wife of Sri Gopal Das Mudgal. It has further been alleged that after Smt. Shakuntala Devi left the house of the applicant, he did not have any sextual intercourse with her.
The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that list of witnesses and documents to be summoned was filed on 10-8-1990 as per Annexure I. Learned counsel also produced the certified copy of the said application during the course of hearing. This however, was disputed by the learned counsel for the opposite party arguing that there is no entry of this application in the order sheet or in the index of the record of the lower court. It is not necessary, nor proper to express any opinion in this matter. The charge was framed on 5-12-1990 under Section 497, IPC against the opposite party and statements of two witnesses Suresh Chandra Bhardwaj (PW 1) and Uma Shankar Mudgal (PW 2) were recorded on 24-9-1991 but the statement of Kali Charan (PW 3) was recorded on 23-10-1991. The court closed the evidence of the applicant on that day and fixed 29-10-1991 as the next date for statement under Section 313, Cr PC and defence. The applicant on 24-10-1991 filed summons and Talbana for summoning Dr. Har Charan Lal Bansal, Govt. General Hospital, Dhaulpur (Rajasthan) and the employee of District Supply Office, Agra as per para 10 of the affidavit of the applicant. It is contended that no order was passed to issue summons on this application. The com plainant again moved an application on 29-10- 1991 (Annexure II) alleging that the evidence of the two witnesses alongwith record is necessary in the case. The court allowed this application vide its order dated 29-10-1991 (Annexure III) on payment of Rs. 100 as costs and fixed 11-11-1991 for additional evidence of the complainant, statement of the accused under Section 313, Cr PC, defence and arguments. The complainant filed summons and Talbana on 29/30-10-91 for summoning the witnesses for 11-11-1991 vide para 13 of the affidavit of the applicant. On 11-11-1991 the complainant moved an application for adjourn ment of the case and summons were issued Dasti fixing 19-11-1991. It is asserted that the complainant took summons and affected service of the sum mons on the Dr. Har Charan Lal Bansal on 16-11-1991 and in the office of the District Supply Officer on 14-11-1991 and filed the same in the court on 6-12-1991 vide para 12 of the affidavit of the applicant. On 6-12-1991 further dates was fixed for 13-12-1991 and the court specifically mentioned that no further time for producing evidence will be allowed to the complainant. The complainant filed summons and Talbana on 7-12-1991 for summoning the aforesaid two witnesses for 13-12-1991 vide para 17 of the affidavit of the applicant. It is again asserted that the court did not take steps to issue sum mons, nor asked the complainant to get the summons effected Dasti and con sequently the witnesses were not summoned. On 13-12-1991 when the cause was taken up, the applicant after requesting the Court went to call his counsel but in the meantime the trial court closed the evidence of the complainant and the statement of the opposite party under Section 313, Cr PC and 17-12-1991 was fixed for evidence of the defence as well as arguwnts. In the meantime, the complainant moved transfer application against the presiding officer of the trial court (Annexure VII) which application was dismissed on 2 VI2-1991. The case was ordered to be listed on 2-1-1992. On 2-1-1992 the complainant moved another application (Annexure IX) to summon the aforesaid two wit nesses under Section 311, Crpc. The court by its order dated 2-1-1992 (Annexure X) did not reject this application and observed that if the witnesses during the course of arguments are considered material for arriving at the cor rect decision, then the witnesses may be summoned under Section 311, Crpc.

Learned counsel for the opposite party argued that there is no illega lity in the aforesaid order dated 2-1-1992, nor in the procedure followed by the lower court and that the applicant is procrastinating the case and he had not actually filed the application on 10-8-1990 for summoning the witnesses as alleged.

(3.)AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, I find that it is not a fit case to invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr PC. The lower court has not rejected the application of the complainant for summoning the aforementioned two witnesses under Section 311. Crpc. The argument of the learned counsel for the complainant is that there is a specific mention in the complaint itself that a female child was born at Dhaulpur Government Maternity Hospital on 2-1-1984 and that the evidence of the Docror is material for the purposes of proving the ingredients of Sec. 497, IPC. It is further argued that the evidence of the clerk of the District Supply Office alongwith enquiry report for the purposes of ration card is alo material in the matter. It is not necessary for this Court to express any opinion on merits but the lower Court will apply its mind judicial and if the evidence of the aforesaid to witnesses appears to be material and essential for the just decision of the case, then the lower court will exercise its discretion for summoning the aforesaid two witnesses for securing the ends of justice in the case.
With the aforesaid observations, this application under Section 482, Cr PC is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.