JUDGMENT
Poonam Srivastav, J.
1. Heard Sri Vinod Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 7.12.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Meerut in Session Trial No. 50 of 2003. The order passed by the IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Meerut taking cognizance is also impugned in the instant writ petition. The impugned order has been passed on an application moved on behalf of the accused, numbered as 34Kha, raising an objection that previously CBCID conducted the investigation and submitted final report. Subsequently, an order was obtained for further investigation and charge sheet was submitted. The order of cognizance has been emphatically disputed and a prayer was made to summon the final report submitted previously and thereafter the order taking cognizance may be quashed. The learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act) Meerut declined to summon the record relating to final report and prayer of the petitioner was not granted.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Anr. 1996 (33) A.CC., 704 (S.C.) and Anr. decision, State of M.P. v. Mohan Lal Soni 2000 (2) J.I.C 875 (S.G) Both the cases decided by the Apex Court and relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner are at the stage of Section 227 and 239 Cr.P.C. which enjoins a duty on the Sessions Judge, whether to proceed against the accused or not. In doing so the trial court can take into consideration the record of the case such as case diary as well as the document produced at the instance of the accused. In the event, the trial court proceeds to frame charge in spite of it, could be quashed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The court below while passing the impugned order came to a conclusion that those decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case and rejected the application of the petitioner.
4. I have gone through the order and do not find any illegality whatsoever. Besides this that the court below was well within its rights to decline the request of the accused to call for the record of the final report submitted by the CBCID. It is also noteworthy that the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner now stands overruled by the subsequent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Devendra Nath Podhi Judgment Today 2004 (1) S.C., 2003. The decision in the case of Satish Mehra (supra) was overruled. The Apex Court held that the accused has no right to summon or produce any document at the initial stage of framing charge. It was clearly ruled that the defence on behalf of the accused is not relevant at the stage of framing charge. The Apex Court had placed reliance on a decision in the case of Om Prakash Sharma v. State of U.P. Judgment Today 2004 (6) S.C. 554. In view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court, since the accused is not entitled to summon any document at the stage of framing charge, it is well settled that at the time of cognizance the accused could not be given the liberty to make a request for summoning any record whatsoever. In the instant case, a final report was submitted by the Investigating Agency and subsequently a permission was sought under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. for further investigation thereafter charge sheet has been filed. Thus I am satisfied that the court below did not commit any illegality, irregularity whatsoever while refusing the request of the petitioner to summon the record and final report submitted by the CBCID. In this writ petition also, learned Counsel for the petitioner has made request to summon the record of the final report, which can not be exceeded in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The matter was completely within the domain of the Investigating Officer and no objection could be raised at the behest of the accused.
5. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere and grant the relief prayed for in the instant writ petition. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.