Through i^Ir. S.D. Kushwaha and Mr.M. I^ohtaram, Advocates v. ] t--:

1. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.11.2010 by virtue of which a prayer of the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was allowed and he was allowed to produce the certified copies of the documents in respect of the case pending between the mother of the petitioner and the respondent herein subject to costs of Rs.4000/-.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed a case under Section 482 Cr.P.C for setting aside the order dated 19/11/2010 relating to the case where the respondent had alleged that the respondent has made a complaint against him 2011:DHC:12127 ! r-^ and caused simple injuries to him on 18.12.1987. The complaint was initiated against the present petitioner and it took almost a decade to get his evidence recorded and therefore, the statement of the accused was also recorded partially and at that stage the present application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for seeking to place on record the certified copies of the statement given by the accused in order to prove that the respondent had I tried to dispossess the petitioner from the suit premises. This application though in my view was belatedly permitted to be • taken on record by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by imposing a cost of ?4000/- on the petitioner. He was given the opportunity only to bring evidence in this regard.

3. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by virtue of the said order on the ground that costs of ?4000/- has been imposed on him and the fact that apart from the certified copy of the statement of the accused for which he had made a prayer for permitting him to bring on record the complaint dated 01.12.1997 purported to have been made to the Police by the mother of the present petitioner was not allowed.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel that this aspect of the prayer of the petitioner to bring on record the complaint dated 01.12.1997 purported to have been made by his mother has not. V V been dealt with in the impugned order, therefore, the order is being assailed seeking permission to prove the said complaint also. It has also been prayed that the cost of ?4000/- which is imposed on the petitioner be also set aside. Further, it has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that on account of an error in the trial court the suit no. 916/2007 in which statement of the accused was recorded has been wrongly shown as suit no. 916/2011 while the correct suit no. is the suit no. 416/1997.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the order. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which is to be exercised by the Court only when there is an abuse of processes of law or when any order is required to be passed in the interest of justice. In the light of the facts, that the complaint and the statement of the accused which was admittedly recorded much prior to the initiation of the complaint, in the present case, the complainant should have been vigilant to prove both these documents when it was to produce the documents. More so, it would be unfair as the petitioner took almost a decade to conclude his evidence against the respondent by initiating the complaint more than 14 years ago.

7. I am of the view that the petitioner filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C at such a belated stage despite having so much time to adduce his evidence. But since the discretion has already been exercised by the learned trial court in favour of the petitioner at least with regard to one aspect of the matter by permitting the statement recorded in the Civil Court to be i produced and this court on account of being a superior court p ought not to substitute the said discretion. So far as the other proof of document i.e. complaint made by the mother of the present petitioner is concerned the same reasoning would have applied to it. Since the learned Magistrate has chosen not to allow proof ofthe said complaint on record consciously, I do find any infirmity in the said order.

8. I do not find any abuse of process of law in the impugned order and therefore it does not require any passing of an order by this Court to the contrary. Accordingly, the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court. Any observations made by this Court or the learned Magistrate will not be taken as the final while deciding the matter on its merits.

8. Dismissed. V.K. SHALI.J SEPTEMBER 07, 2011 k