- (1.) The petitioners have been chargesheeted in a case arising out of FIR No. 156 dated 3.9.2011 under Section 376(2)(g)/ 342/506 IPC registered at Police Station, City Charkhi Dadri and is facing trial.
(2.) By way of this revision petition, the petitioners have challenged order dated 18.2.2012 of the trial Court, whereby their request for summoning of record of complaint No. 366/2 PD Dated 20.8.2011 filed with the police for confrontation of the same to the witness of the prosecution has been rejected.
(3.) The impugned order reads thus:- "An application has been filed for summoning the record for confrontation of the same with the witnesses of the prosecution sought to be examined. Heard. It was argued that as per prosecution case, complainant submitted application to the police and father of the complainant also made complaint No. 366/2 PD dated 20.8.2011 against the applicant but the applications were not with the challan nor copies of the same were supplied to the applicant. It was argued that complaint No. 366 dated 20.8.2011 might be summoned for the purpose of confrontation with the witnesses as after going through the complaint, the accused would come out with his defence and know about the earlier version of the complainant. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that the record sought to be summoned for the purpose of confrontation could be brought in defence by the accused. It was also argued by learned counsel for the accused that it would not be possible for the accused to get the document admitted or denied by the witnesses. After giving thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the rival submissions made at Bar, this Court is of the considered opinion that complaint No. 366/2 dated 20.8.2011 has been admitted to be a document by this police in the first version of the prosecution and interest of justice would be served if this document is allowed to be brought in defence evidence and the trial is not allowed to be stalled. Learned counsel for the accused stated that accused wanted to file the revision petition against this order and thus the time might be granted to the defence for moving the revisionary jurisdiction. There is no force in the contention of the learned defence counsel as if the revision is allowed, the witnesses can be examined again. Let the witnesses in attendance be examined forthwith.";