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
(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.
The court upheld the dismissal of a petition to summon a lost document, ruling that summoning a non-existent document is ineffective.
The court emphasized the importance of making efforts to obtain crucial evidence and highlighted the bar on filing a second revision petition under Section 397(3) Cr.P.C.
The necessity of cross-examination before summoning further evidence was established.
The procedural compliance regarding issuance of summons must be adhered to in judicial processes pertaining to dishonoured cheques under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
A party's right to reopen evidence is vital for ensuring fair trial, especially when prior evidence may aid in clarifying crucial facts.
The need for the complainant's personal appearance and the discretion to adjourn the hearing before dismissing the complaint.
The court must consider only the allegations in the complaint and pre-summoning evidence when taking cognizance, and the accused's defense can be raised during the trial.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.