Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mr. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Ramanuj Gour - Appellant
Versus
Ravindra Sharma - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 843 of 2018
Decided On : 10-04-2018
Section 91 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of Order - The court dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to call the income tax return of the complainant's mother and wife during cross-examination, stating that a fishing and roving inquiry cannot be held in a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner issued a cheque of Rs.5 Lakhs to the complainant, which bounced. The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. During cross-examination, the complainant stated that the amount was received from his mother and wife.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application to call the income tax return of the complainant's mother and wife during cross-examination was rightly dismissed as a delay tactic.
Issues: The issue was whether the petitioner could call the income tax return of the complainant's mother and wife during cross-examination in a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a fishing and roving inquiry cannot be held in a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, and the petitioner could call the income tax official as a defense witness during the trial.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed without interference, but the petitioner was granted liberty to examine the income tax official as a defense witness.
JUDGMENT
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of order dated 8.12.2017 passed by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate, (NI Act Cases) No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan, in Criminal Complaint No. 2147/2013. The said court vide impugned order had rejected the application of the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C.
2. Briefly stated that the petitioner had issued a cheque amounting to Rs.5 Lakhs in favour of the complainant. The said cheque was issued in the month of June, 2012. The cheque presented had bounced on 26.12.2012 because payment was stopped by the petitioner. The complainant on 18.2.2013 instituted a complaint. Thereafter, the complainant appeared for cross-examination on 15.2.2017 and 8.12.2017. During the course of cross-examination, the complainant stated that the amount of Rs.5 Lakhs which he had given to the petitioner was received by him from his mother and wife. The complainant stated that mother and wife both have given Rs.2.5 Lakhs. At that stage, an application was filed that cross-examination be deferred and petitioner be permitted to call the income tax return of mother and wife of the complainant.
3. In a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, a fishing and roving inquiry cannot be held. It cannot be ruled out that mother and wife of the complainant have their household saving and they can keep the amount as cash in hand. However, even if the petitioner intends to prove income tax returns of mother and wife of the complainant, petitioner always can call official of the income tax department while leading defence evidence. In the midst of cross-examination, it cannot be postponed for an indefinite period. Therefore, the application was rightly dismissed as same was nothing but a delay tactics.
4. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed without causing any interference with liberty to the petitioner to examine income tax official as defence witness.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
