IMPORTANT POINT
Only relevant documents can be sought to be produced under Section 91 , Cr.P.C.

H.R. Panwar, J. —This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC is directed against the order dated 30.6.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (for short, “the Trial Court” hereinafter) in Criminal Original Case No.42 of 2005, whereby the application filed by the accused petitioner under Section 91 CrPC came to be dismissed.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Carefully gone through the impugned order as to also the record of the Trial Court.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had an “Aadhat” with the complainant/non-petitioner and production of account books by the complainant/non-petitioner is necessary in order to do complete justice between the parties.

4. On careful perusal of the record, as also the impugned order, it appears that the complainant non-petitioner came with the case that after the year 2004, there had not been any “Aadhat” of the petitioner with the complainant non-petitioner and in the year 2004, the entire account was settled between the parties and the “Aadhat” was closed and thereafter no “Aadhat” was there and there was no question of giving the cheque in question on 27.2.2005.

5. A reply to the application has been filed by the complainant non-petitioner wherein he has specifically stated that there had not been any “Aadhat”. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the cheque is question has no relevancy with the period of “Aadhat” i.e. the year 2004 and the Court below did not think it necessary to summon the account books. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of this Court in Firm Bhagala Bros. v. Mani Ram.1 In that case, in the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, an application came to be filed by the accused therein before the Trial Court for summoning the books of accounts relating to the transaction in issue and the Trial Court directed the complainant to produce the books of accounts relating to the transaction in issue in that case and that order came to be challenged by the said firm before this Court by way of filing a criminal miscellaneous petition, which came to be dismissed by the order dated 6.9.2006. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner turns on its own fact and is of no help to the petitioner herein. In the instant case, there is specific case of the complainant non-petitioner that the cheque in question has no relevancy with the period of “Aadhat” during which any transaction has taken place between the parties sicne the complainant has come with the specific case that the cheque was not issued in relation to the “Aadhat” but it related to the loan amount.

6. In this view of the matter, the Trial Court was justified in passing the impugned order. It cannot be said that the impugned order would result in serious injustice warranting interference.

7. The criminal miscellaneous petition is therefore, dismissed. The stay petition also stands dismissed. The record of the Trial Court be returned forthwith.

Criminal miscellaneous petition dismissed.

*******