Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 307

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.
Amit Sukhija – Appellant
Versus
Pritpal Singh – Respondent
CRM-M-10937-2020
Decided On : 24-08-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Lovish Arora, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the respondent, for the Respondent

The accused should be allowed to lead their defense and seek assistance from the Court for summoning witnesses, and the evidentiary value of defense evidence should be determined during trial.

Headnote:
Section 91 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of Order - Negotiable Instruments Act - 138, 142 - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner received a legal notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonoring a cheque. The petitioner denied any dealing with the complainant and alleged that the cheque was forged. The petitioner filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. to produce call details to establish that the de facto complainant was someone else.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the petitioner's defense was based on the claim that the cheque had been misused by another individual. The Court held that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to lead his defense and that the production of the call details was relevant and not intended to delay proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. was filed to delay proceedings or if it was relevant to the petitioner's defense.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that the accused should be allowed to approach the Court for obtaining assistance with regard to summoning of witnesses and that the evidentiary value of defense evidence should be adjudicated during trial.
Final Decision: The impugned order was quashed, and the Trial Court was directed to conclude the trial within 6 months.

JUDGMENT

Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. - The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of the order dated 14.02.2020 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Faridkot, in complaint case titled as Pritpal Singh Versus Amit Sukhija bearing NACT No.487 of 2018 dated 12.06.2018 (Annexure P-3) pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Faridkot, vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner/accused received a legal notice dated 22.05.2018 (Annexure P-1) issued on behalf of the respondent/complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It was stated in the notice that on 10.01.2018, the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- in cash for domestic needs from the respondent as a friendly loan and had also agreed to pay interest @ 1% per month. It was further stated in the notice that on 15.05.2018, the respondent demanded the said amount and the petitioner in discharge of his liability issued a cheque bearing No.017494 dated 15.05.2018 for Rs.6,50,000/- from his account in IDBI Bank, Branch Faridkot in favour of the respondent. It was further stated in the notice that the respondent presented the cheque for encashment in his account, but the same was returned with the remarks 'Funds Insufficient'.

3. On receipt of the notice (Annexure P-1), the petitioner submitted a reply dated 25.05.2018 through his counsel. It was categorically stated in the reply that the petitioner had no dealing with Pritpal Singh, who is not known to him (i.e. complainant) and the cheque appears to be forged, while getting the same from one Raj Kumar. It was requested in the reply to supply a coloured photocopy of the said cheque or permit inspection of the original cheque.

4. Thereafter, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Vide order dated 17.07.2018, the petitioner was ordered to be summoned to face trial for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

On 17.10.2018, the petitioner appeared before JMIC, Faridkot and he was released on bail.

5. In order to prove its case, the respondent himself appeared in the witness box as CW-1 and further examined Vicky as CW-2 and Ravinder Singh as CW-3. The respondent produced the cheque as Ex.C-1, return memo as Ex.C-2, legal notice as Ex.C-3, receipt as Ex.C-4 and acknowledgement as Ex.C-5.

6. On 17.01.2020, the petitioner filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. to direct the Mobile Telecommunication Companies to produce the call details of Mobile No.98723-19401 and Mobile No.98729-17565 of Airtel Company and Mobile No.98144-59437 of Idea Company and also of Mobile No.70090-60265 of Reliance Jio Company with record showing in whose name the said numbers were registered for the period 18.08.2018 to 15.01.2020. It was stated in the application that Raj Kumar @ Hira was running the business of committees and was having two blank cheques, one of Krishan Lal father of the petitioner/accused and another of accused Amit Sukhija as security with him in respect of the said committee, in which he was also made one of the members. The said Raj Kumar @ Hira had misused the said blank signed cheques and after fabricating the same one in the name of his brother Kimti Lal and another in the name of Pritpal Singh who is revealed to be his friend, two different criminal complaints on the basis of said two forged and fabricated cheques had been got filed through his brother Kimti Lal and the other from Pritpal Singh. It is further averred that one pronote and receipt had also been forged and fabricated alleged to be executed by Krishan Lal in favour of Kimti Lal in which the witness has been shown as Raj Kumar @ Hira, who is the brother of Kimti Lal and the other witness is Vicky Bansal. To prove the said