JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 27.3.2023, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that a complaint was pending before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking the production and proof of documents mentioned in the application. It was asserted that the accused was working as an agent of the complainant. He approached the complainant to open an L-3 wholesale vend at Una. The accused was in charge of the liquor vend. He was duty-bound to deposit the sale proceeds with the complainant. He failed to do so and issued a cheque of .41,01,327/- in the discharge of his legal liability. The accused led the evidence to controvert the fact that he was in charge of L-13, Una; therefore, the application was filed for producing the documents on record.

3. The application was opposed by filing a reply taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability and the applicant having suppressed the material facts from the Court. The contents of the application were denied on merits. it was asserted that the respondent-accused had earlier filed an application before the Court seeking copies of bills/sales invoices, account statements and stock statements of financial year 2014-15 from the complainant. The complainant resisted the application and did not supply the documents. The application was disposed of by the Court. The complainant asserted that the accused could not force the complainant to place the documents on record and all the relevant documents had been placed on record.

4. The Learned Trial Court held that the documents were necessary for the adjudication of the dispute. No prejudice would be caused to the respondent-accused and he will get an opportunity to controvert the documents in cross-examination. Hence, the application was allowed.

5. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the present petition has been filed for setting aside the order. It has been asserted that the learned Trial Court erred in allowing the application. The application was not maintainable. Section 311 of Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to recall the witnesses and not deal with the production of the documents. Learned Trial Court failed to notice this fact. The complainant had himself stated in response to the application filed by the accused that the documents were not necessary and all the relevant documents had already been produced on record. The complainant wants to produce the document to prolong the trial. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

6. I have heard Mr. Subhash Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Suneet Goel, learned counsel for the respondent.

7. Mr. Subhash Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in allowing the application. The accused had filed an application seeking the production of various documents. The complainant failed to produce the documents and instead stated that the documents relevant to the dispute had already been placed on record. The learned Trial Court did not notice the contents of the reply and wrongly allowed the application. Allowing the application will lead to filling up the lacuna. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

8. Mr. Suneet Goel, learned counsel for the respondent supported the order passed by the learned Trial Court and submitted that no interference is required with the same.

9. I have given considerable thought to the submission