R.K.Rastogi - (1.) -This is an application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. to quash the orders dated 5.7.2005 and 31.1.2007 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Hamirpur in S.T. No. 106 of 2004, State v. Ramadhin and others, under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 304, I.P.C. police station Maudaha district Hamirpur.
(2.) THE facts relevant for disposal of this application are that the aforesaid sessions trial is pending against the applicants and statement of P.W. 1 Vimal Singh has been recorded in the above case. THE applicants moved an application before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Hamirpur, where the case is pending, that Ramjiawan, one of the prosecution witnesses in the above case, had moved an application before the Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur on 21.7.1999 alleging that the police had not properly investigated the case, the real culprits had not been named in the F.I.R., the correct description of the incident had also not been noted in the F.I.R., some innocent persons had been falsely implicated in the incident and names of some known and unknown culprits were intentionally not written in the report. This application was investigated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Maudaha Sri K. K. Singh ; and in connection with that inquiry, he recorded statements of several witnesses, and then he submitted a report to the Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur on 18.8.1999. It was prayed by the accused that copies of statements of those witnesses which were recorded by Sri K. K. Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Maudaha, and a copy of his report should be furnished to the accused for cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. THE application was rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, vide his order dated 5.7.2005. THEreafter another application to the same effect was again moved on 27.11.2006. This application was rejected by the Addl. Sessions Judge vide his order dated 31.1.2007 in which he also referred to the earlier order dated 5.7.2005, and held that in view of that order the present application was liable to be dismissed. Aggrieved with both these orders the present application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State in which it has been asserted that the aforesaid inquiry is a separate matter and it was conducted on the application of Ramjiawan that the matter was not being properly investigated and on investigation those allegations were found to be false and the report to that effect was submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur in this regard. It has further been asserted that the statements of persons recorded in connection with the aforesaid inquiry are not part of the case diary of the case, and copies of all the statements of the witnesses and other documents upon which the prosecution was relying in connection with the present sessions trial against the accused, have already been furnished, and statements of the persons which were recorded in connection with the above inquiry have got no relevance with this sessions trial and so there is no legal requirement to supply copies of those statements to the accused. The applicants have filed a rejoinder-affidavit also asserting their contentions.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the aforesaid documents. The learned counsel for the applicants cited before me rulings of this Court in Dr. Sanjay Singh and others v. State and another, 1989 ALJ 1029 : 1990 ACR 270 (LB) and in Charan Jeet Singh alias Tinkoo Sardar v. State of U. P., 2005 JIC (All) 49 : 2005 (1) ACR 445 in support of his contention.;