The court clarified that under Section 145 of the Evidence Act, documents relevant to a witness's statements can be used for contradiction regardless of who executed them, affirming the importance of effective cross-examination in fair trials.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Mahra, J.

Present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 17.06.2022 passed in Complaint Case No. 4099 of 2018, pending before the Court of learned 3^rd Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, whereby the application moved by the applicant for taking certain documents on record for the purpose of cross-examination of the complainant witness has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the son of the complainant and the applicant had entered into a partnership deed dated 24.08.2016 for carrying on the business of providing hostel facilities to students; that, the complainant himself was a witness to the said partnership deed and had signed the same as witness no.1; that, in the year 2018, the partners mutually decided to dissolve the partnership firm and consequently a partnership dissolution deed was executed between the applicant and the son of the complainant; that, the complainant again signed the said dissolution deed as witness no.1; that, on the same day, another agreement was executed between the applicant and the son of the complainant detailing the terms of full and final settlement of the partnership accounts, wherein the complainant also appended his signatures as a witness.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that, in terms of the agreement executed between the parties, the outstanding dues were mutually settled by payment of cash in lieu of the cheques; that, subsequently, another settlement deed/agreement was executed between the parties recording that all liabilities and dues between them had been fully and finally settled. It is further contended that during the subsistence of the partnership, a joint bank account was opened in the name of the applicant and the son of the complainant in terms of the partnership deed; that, some blank signed cheques of the applicant were lying with the son of the complainant. According to the applicant, one of such cheques was misused by the complainant, who thereafter filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the applicant before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. It is further alleged that the cheque in question bears the signatures not only of the applicant but also of the then partner, i.e., the son of respondent no.2.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was entertained and the applicant was summoned vide order dated 06.02.2019; that, the complainant thereafter filed his affidavit of examination-in-chief as PW-1 and was partly cross-examined; that, during the course of such cross-examination, the applicant moved an application seeking permission to place certain documents on record for the purpose of confronting and contradicting the complainant witness with respect to the transactions relating to the partnership and settlement between the parties.

5. He would further submit that along with the said application, the applicant sought to place on record the partnership deed, partnership dissolution deed, agreement, acknowledgment receipts, settlement deed, and copies of cheques. However, the learned trial court rejected the said application vide the impugned order dated 17.06.2022, holding that under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, only those documents which are executed by the witness himself can be used for the purpose of contradiction.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the reasoning adopted by the lea