Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28141 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3743 of 2025 Applicant :- Shashank Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Addl. Civil Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Singh Rajawat Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Shailendra Singh Rajawat, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. 2. In the light of proposed order notice to opposite party no.2 is dispensed with. 3. By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has prayed for quashing the order dated 18.04.2025, passed by the Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2025 - Shashank Pandey and Others Vs. Supriya Pandey. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 16.01.2025, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 15, Pratapgarh in Complaint Case No. 1386 of 2021 - Supriya Pandey Vs. Shashank Pandey and Others. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that he was married to opposite party no. 2 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals on 12.05.2018. It has been stated that subsequently, there was matrimonial discord on various grounds and the applicant filed a suit under Section 11 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradoon for declaring the marriage null and void. 5. The aforesaid suit proceeded ex-parte and was decided on 26.03.2021, declaring the marriage of the petitioner and opposite party no. 2 as null and void. Opposite party no. 2 being aggrieved by the order dated 26.03.2021, preferred first appeal in the High Court of Uttrakhand at Nainital and same has been dismissed for want of prosecution. In the aforesaid circumstances, opposite party no. 2 has filed an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Vilence Act on 11.09.2019 and also moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Pratapgarh. In both the cases,the applicant has appeared and is contesting the said cases. 6. In the proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act the applicant has moved an application on 16.07.2024, numbered as Application No. 38(B) submitting video recording of conversation between the applicant and opposite party no. 2 and his family members. He has submitted the said video clip alongwith report of an expert and claims that he has complied with the provisions of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. He has further submitted that the Forensic Expert has also been examined in the Court and he has stated that there is no tampering with the video clip, and same is genuine. 7. The dispute in the present case has arisen on account of another application no. 41(B), requesting the Court to play the video clip for its comparison with the transcription which has been filed by the applicant. The said application was considered by the trial Court and by means of order dated 16.01.2025, same was rejected. The said application was contested by opposite party no. 2 on the ground that there was no legal provision for moving such an application and same has been made only to delay the proceedings and the trial Court considering the aforesaid facts has rejected the application moved by the applicant. 8. The applicant, against order dated 16.01.2025, preferred criminal appeal before the Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, who has also rejected the said appeal by means of order dated 18.04.2025, after observing that video clip would be examined by the Court at the appropriate stage and accordingly, has rejected the appeal of the applicant. Both the aforesaid orders have been challenged in the present application. 9. It is noticed that the relevant facts for consideration are that the applicant is defendant in the proceedings instituted by opposite party no. 2. The applicant has filed video clip as evidence. In support of the video clip applicant has also submitted a certificate of Forensic expert who has also been examined by the trial Court and according to the applicant, the video clip has been found to be genuine. 10. Apart from filing the video clip, the applicant has also filed a transcript in the Court and now the applicant wants the Court to play the said video clip and see whether the transcript is correct or not. It is the said application which has been rejected by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. 11. It is noticed that at the stage of leading defense the applicant has right to adduce all the evidence which he wishes to place on record in his defense and in this regard video clip was placed on record and provisions of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act also stand complied with. It is necessary to notice here that the certificate which was available on record pertaining to Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act pertains only to the video clip. Accordingly, it is the video clip alone which is admissible evidence in the present case. 12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1 has categorically held that it is at the discretion of the trial court to permit submission of evidence at the later stage. The relevant paragraph is quoted herein below : "56. Therefore, in terms of general procedure, the prosecution is obligated to supply all documents upon which reliance may be placed to an accused before commencement of the trial. Thus, the exercise of power by the courts in criminal trials in permitting evidence to be filed at a later stage should not result in serious or irreversible prejudice to the accused. A balancing exercise in respect of the rights of parties has to be carried out by the court, in examining any application by the prosecution under Sections 91 or 311 CrPC or Section 165 of the Evidence Act. Depending on the facts of each case, and the court exercising discretion after seeing that the accused is not prejudiced by want of a fair trial, the court may in appropriate cases allow the prosecution to produce such certificate at a later point in time. If it is the accused who desires to produce the requisite certificate as part of his defence, this again will depend upon the justice of the case — discretion to be exercised by the court in accordance with law." 13. Further, submission of transcription is at the discretion of the trial Court to consider the same to be a reliable and admissible inasmuch as the applicant has only submitted the video clip as evidence in his defense. This Court finds that both the Courts have considered the application of the applicant and held that the evidence filed by the parties will be considered at the appropriate stage by the trial Court and there is no right vested in the applicant for seeking direction to play the video clip and to test the transcription filed by the applicant which allegedly is of the video clip filed by him. 14. When a pointed query has been made to the learned counsel for the applicant to indicate as to whether any provision exists where such direction as sought by him can be passed, he fairly submitted that it is only right of defense which has been claimed by the applicant, though no specific provision in this regard exists. 15. Accordingly, this Court finds that no such right exists with any of the parties to play the said video clip at any stage of the proceedings. It is the discretion of the Court to take into consideration all the evidence placed before it at appropriate stage. This Court finds that it is only the video clip which is admissible in evidence which is filed under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and not its transcription. 16. In any view of the matter, this Court do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the trial Court as well as appellate Court, necessitating any interference by this Court. 17. In the light of above, present application being devoid of merits is rejected. 18. It is made clear that the trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made in this order and shall proceed to consider and decide the case on its merit. Order Date :- 12.5.2025/A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench