Anoop Chitkara DECISION
Anoop Chitkara, J.
1. The present criminal revision petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of order dated 5.2.2019, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No. 3, Hamirpur, H.P., in CNR No. HPHA020031282018 (881/2018), Cr.MA No. 241-IV/2018 filed in Police Challan No. -06-1/15.
2. The victim, who works as a Junior Engineer in the IPH Department in Hamirpur, in her complaint, alleged that petitioner, Sham Singh, who is a Contractor, keeps on calling her on phone and pressurizes her to establish sexual relations with him. She further alleged that for the last six months, Contractor Sham Singh was mentally disturbing her. To corroborate her allegations, she also mentioned the phone numbers. She further alleged that he sends SMS on Face-book account. Although, she had ignored his friend request, he keeps on pressurizing her again and again to establish sexual relations with him. She further alleged that he used to chase her and when she strictly warned him not to indulge in these activities, then, he in connivance with some officials, got committed theft of two measurement books from her office and they started blackmailing her. In this regard, he also filed one RTI application and under that pretext, he states that he will get everything resolved if she agrees to establish sexual relations with him.
3. Briefly, on these allegations, FIR No. 77/2014 dated 7.4.2014, under Sections 354A, 354D, 379 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66A of the Information and Technology Act, 2000, was registered at Police Station, Sadar, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh.
4. After investigation, police filed a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and consequently, accused is facing the trial. During the pendency of the trial, the victim through Public Prosecutor filed an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for placing on record one CD containing some vulgar remarks made by the accused. In the application, it was mentioned that such vulgar remarks had been made in the presence of one Keshav Kumar who is also a Government Contractor at Dhaneta. The victim in the application contends that the CD is very material and necessary for the proper adjudication of the trial and similarly examination of Keshav Kumar is also necessary to corroborate the allegation recorded in the CD.
5. The trial Court, vide order dated 5.4.2019, allowed the application and ordered that the CD be taken on record. The trial Court further ordered examination of Keshav Kumar, the Government Contractor and summoned him for 15.5.2019. This order is under challenge vide the present petition.
6. I have heard Mr. Peeyush Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Bhatti and Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State and Mr. C.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/victim.
7. There are two limbs of arguments addressed by Mr. Peeyush Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. The first limb touches the scope and powers under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon such evidence at a belated stage and second limb of his arguments is that this application was simply a tactics played by the victim to drag on the prosecution and delay the outcome of the trial. The first limb of the argument has a very limited scope. The first limb of argument has hardly any substance. Section