- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) So far as the contention of the petitioner in regard to his right to lead evidence in defence even at the stage of framing charge is concerned, the same is concluded against the petitioner by the judgement of this Court in the case of Adalat Prasad V/s. Rooplal Jindal. However, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgement of this Court in State of Orissa V/s. Debendra Nath Padhi wherein at para 29, this Court said as follows: "29. Regarding the argument of the accused having to face the trial despite being in a position to produce material of unimpeachable character of sterling quality, the width of the powers of the High Court u/s. 482 of the Code and Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is unlimited whereunder in the interests of justice the High Court can make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice within the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal"
(3.) Based on the above it is argued that it is open to the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India or u/s. 482 Code of Criminal Procedure to challenge the complaint filed by the respondent.;