SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Raj) 916

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA, J
Farook S/O Bhanwaru Khan Moyal - Appellant
Versus
Pyarelal S/O Nemichand - Respondent
CRLMP / 815 / 2025
Decided On : 10-02-2025

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Subhash Sharma, Mr. Rishi Raj Rathore, PP

The court upheld the dismissal of a petition to summon a lost document, ruling that summoning a non-existent document is ineffective.

Headnote:

(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 91 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Dismissal of application for summoning original ‘bahi’ - The accused challenged the dismissal of his application to summon the original ‘bahi’ to substantiate allegations regarding a loan of Rs. 6 lacs, which the complainant claimed was lost - The Magistrate dismissed the application based on the complainant's claim of loss - The Revisional Court upheld this dismissal. (Paras 1-10)

(B) The necessity of original documents - The court noted that summoning a lost document would be ineffective and therefore dismissed the petition. (Paras 8-10)

Facts of the case:
The complainant filed a complaint against the accused for dishonor of a cheque amounting to Rs. 6 lacs, claiming it was related to a loan documented in the original ‘bahi’, which was stated to be lost.

Findings of Court:
The court found no grounds to interfere with the dismissal of the petition as the original document was lost.

Issues: The main issue was whether the original ‘bahi’ was necessary to substantiate the allegations made by the complainant.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that summoning a lost document is ineffective and upheld the lower courts' decisions to dismiss the applications.

Result: Miscellaneous petition dismissed.

Judgment :

1. This misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner u/S 528 of BNS challenging the order dated 16.10.2024 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar in case (CIS) No. 1945/2014 whereby the application filed by the accused petitioner u/S 91 CrPC for summoning the original ‘bahi’ from the complainant-respondent was dismissed. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 16.01.2025 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar in Criminal Revision No. 32/2024 whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 16.10.2024 was dismissed.

2. Considered the submissions and perused the material made available with the petition.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant respondent file a complaint against the accused petitioner for initiation of the proceedings for offences punishable u/S 138 of NI Act with regard to dishonor of a cheque issued by the accused petitioner in favour of the complainant respondent for amount of Rs. 6 lacs as against the alleged debt liability.

4. During the pendency of the complaint, the accused petitioner filed an application u/S 91 of CrPC for summoning the original ‘bahi’ from the complainant respondent. The complainant has stated that the accused petitioner has borrowed a loan of Rs. 6 lacs which was mentioned in original ‘bahi’ and therefore to ascertain the correctness of the allegations against the petitioner, the original ‘bahi’ be summoned from the complainant respondent.

5. The complainant respondent filed reply to the application submitted by the accused petitioner and stated that the original ‘bahi’ has been lost.

6. Learned Magistrate, taking into consideration the fact stated by the complainant in the reply to the application that the original ‘bahi’ has been lost, dismissed the application. The Revisional Court, considering the fact that original ‘bahi’ has been lost, also dismissed the revision petition.

7. Main submission of the learned counsel for the accused petitioner is that the allegation against the petitioner made by the complainant is that he has borrowed a loan of Rs. 6 lacs which was mentioned in the original ‘bahi’ and therefore the original ‘bahi’ is necessary to be summoned for certifying the allegation.

8. It has come on record in the form of reply by the complainant that the original ‘bahi’ has been lost and in such circumstances, the dismissal of the application made by counsel for the petitioner cannot be said to be bad.

9. Once it has come on record that the complainant has lost the original ‘bahi’, it would not be an appropriate order for directing the complainant to submit the original ‘bahi’ as the same will be ineffective.

10. This Court finds no ground to interfere in the order of Court below.

11. Accordingly, this misc. petition is dismissed.

12. Pending application/s, if any, also stands disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top