JUDGMENT :

J. L. ODEDRA, J.

1 Aggrieved by the order passed below Application Exh.68 and 80, the petitioner (original complainant) has preferred the present Special Criminal Application praying for the following reliefs:

“8. The petitioner therefore prays that:-

(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 27.10.2016 passed below Exh.68 as well as the order dated 29.05.2017 passed below Exh.80 in Criminal Case No.3098 of 2013;

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHPS be pleased to stay operation, execution and implementation of the order dated 27.10.2016 passed below Exh.68 as well as the order dated 29.05.2017 passed below Exh.80 in Criminal Case No.3098 of 2013;

(C) YOUR LORDSHPS be pleased to grant such other and further relief(s) in favour the petitioner as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice.”

2 The facts relevant for the present matter so far as necessary to decide the controversy at hand, being in a narrow compass, are enumerated as follows:

2.1 It appears that on 26.03.2010, under a loan agreement, the appellant (original complainant) had advanced a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the respondent No.2 (accused) herein, purportedly to enlarge the scope of the business of respondent No.2, consequent to the respondent No.2 having purchased a vehicle (Bus, bearing registration No.GJ-14-T-211). It appears that some of the installments under the said loan agreement were paid by respondent no.2. However, subsequently, the accused defaulted in payment of the said residual installments. It is alleged that the complainant produced a Cheque for the residual amount including the interest being Cheque No.239784 dated 02.04.2013 for an amount of Rs.2,05,000/-. On presentation of the said cheque, the said cheque came to be dishonoured for the reason of ‘insufficient funds” and hence, after following requisite statutory provisions, the appellant/complainant preferred criminal complaint No.3098 of 2013.

2.2 In the said Criminal Complaint proceedings, by way of Exh.16, the complainant had filed affidavit of examination- in-chief. Subsequently, the cross-examination ensued thereunder. Thereafter, in view of certain admissions, application Exh.68 came to be preferred by the learned advocate for the Respondent No.2(accused), whereunder the impugned orders calling upon the appellant to produce his income-tax returns for the year 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13 came to be passed, thereby disposing the said application Exhibit 68.

2.3 An application for reviewing the said order below Application Exh.68 was preferred by the applicant, which too, came to be rejected by the Court.

3 Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that as such, all the necessary and requisite documents pertaining to the transaction at hand, namely, the loan agreement under which the loan was negotiated, the details of the cheque through which the loan was advanced and disbursed to the account of the Respondent No.2(accused) etc. had already been adduced on the record before the Court. It was submitted that even if in the cross- examination, it was admitted by the appellant that under a particular document, the appellant is entitled to charge the interest on the loan advanced; that such document is with the custody of the appellant; and that even if it was admitted that in the accounts and in the income tax returns of the Appellant, the amounts advanced has been shown, yet the Trial Court could not have called upon the applicant to produce income-tax returns for the year 2010- 11, 2011-12, 2012-13. It was submitted that as such the Respondent No.2(accused) never disputed the existence of the loan agreement and that in confirmation of the same, the Respondent No.2 (accused) has even paid certain installments. That the income-tax returns are not filed by the complainant, merely in respect of the Respondent No.2 (accused) but for number of other persons and as such the a