Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 2126

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Suninder Sandha – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. – Respondents
R1: State of NCT of Delhi
R2: Jeevesh Sabharwal
Criminal Appeals No. 5150-5151 of 2025 [@ Special Leave Petitions (Criminal) No.11600-11601 of 2025]
Decided On : 02-12-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Adit S Pujari, Adv. Mr. Bhavesh Seth, Adv. Ms. Prerna Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Akash Dikshit, Adv. Mr. Bhaskar Aditya, AOR Mr. Pavitra Dixit, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Asim Naeem, Adv. Mr. Maneesh Saxena, Adv. Mr. Vishant Prakash, Adv. Ms. Cherry Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rajan Narain, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare, (Sr. Adv.) ASG Mr. Prasanjeet Mohapatra, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Neelakshi Bhaduria, Adv. Mr. Rishikesh Haridas, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Bhaskar Aditya, AOR Mr. Adit S Pujari, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Production of documents – Section 91 of Cr.P.C. does not itself prescribe any stage.

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 91 [Section 94 of BNSS] – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Production of documents – Section 91 of Cr.P.C. does not itself prescribe any stage – Entitlement of accused to seek order under Section 91CrPC for production of documents that are not relied upon would ordinarily not come till stage of defence – Object is to ensure that accused has knowledge of documents, objects, etc. in custody of Investigating Officer which are not relied upon so that at appropriate stage, accused can apply by invoking provisions of Section 91Cr.P.C. (Section 94 BNSS) for providing copies of documents which are not relied upon by prosecution – As N.I. Act complaint is of year 2016, Trial Court directed to ensure that matter reaches its logical conclusion within a period of one year. (Paras 15, 17 and 20)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals are directed against common Impugned Final Judgment/Order dated 28.05.2025 [2025:DHC:4581] passed by Single Judge of High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal M. C. Nos.9251/2024 and 9252/2024, whereby High Court dismissed petitions filed by appellant and upheld Order dated 23.10.2024 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate in Complaint Cases No.48771/2016 and 47692/2016 directing production of certain documents under Section 91 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Findings of Court:
As NI Act complaint is of the year 2016, Trial Court is directed to ensure that the matter reaches its logical conclusion within a period of one year from today. To this end, a copy of present Order be sent to Trial Court by Registry through the Registrar-General, Delhi High Court.
Result : Criminal Appeals allowed.

ORDER

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH AND PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.

Heard learned senior counsel and counsel for the respective parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. The present appeals are directed against the common Impugned Final Judgment/Order dated 28.05.2025 [2025:DHC:4581] (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’) passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’) in Criminal M. C. Nos.9251/2024 and 9252/2024, whereby the High Court dismissed the petitions filed by the appellant and upheld the Order dated 23.10.2024 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’) in Complaint Cases No.48771/2016 and 47692/2016 (Suninder Sandha v Concept Horizon Infra Pvt. Ltd.) directing the production of certain documents under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’).

LEAD-UP TO THE INSTANT APPEALS:

4. The appellant in these appeals is the complainant in a complaint filed in 2016 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NI Act’) alleging dishonour of a cheque for Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores) issued by respondent no.2.

5. In 2019, respondent no.2 moved an application under Section 210 of the Code before the Trial Court seeking amalgamation of the complaint with a First Information Report lodged by respondent no.2 against the appellant. Whilst the said application was pending, respondent no.2 chose to withdraw the same. Instead, respondent no.2 filed an application under Section 91 of the Code, seeking production of certain documents.

6. By Order dated 23.10.2024, the Trial Court directed the appellant to produce two documents, viz. (i) Income Tax Returns (including audited balance sheets and complete schedules) for the Financial Years 2009-2010 to 2016-2017, and; (ii) Bank Account Statements of the appellant.

7. Aggrieved, the parties i.e., appellant and respondent no.2 (via Criminal M. C. No.1081/2025) approached the High Court, which, vide the Impugned Order, upheld the directions issued by the Trial Court.

SUBMISSIONS:

8. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that only dilatory tactics are being employed by respondent no.2, inasmuch as the matter relates to the year 2016, and from 2018 onwards, yet the proceedings have remained pending/in a state of dormancy till 2024. The application filed under Section 210 of the Code, it was submitted, was kept pending for years and ultimately withdrawn in 2024, only to be substituted by an application under Section 91 of the Code. It was asserted that which resulted in the Order passed by the Trial Court, which partly allowed the application under Section 91 of the Code, and subsequently upheld by the High Court. It was submitted that the law on the point now stands settled. Without reference to any earlier precedent, reliance was straightaway placed on Sarla Gupta v Directorate of Enforcement, (2025) 7 SCC 626, submitting that it has been clearly held that the stage for invoking Section 91 of the Code arises only when the accused produces/begins his defence evidence. It was contended that such stage having not yet arisen, the burden placed upon the appellant to produce the said two documents is wholly beyond jurisdiction.

9. It was further contended that respondent no.2 is trying to avoid his liability by referring to other proceedings initiated by him, which must be adjudicated independently on their own merits, without any interplay with the underlying complaint under the NI Act. It was argued that close to a decade has passed and the appellant has still not received his dues, despite the clear legal obligation/requirement on respondent no.2 to discharge the liability under the cheque in question. It was contended that the issuance and genuineness of the cheque are admitted and the plea that the cheque was issued under a misconception is wholly untenable, particularly when respondent no