ORDER

1. This petition has been filed under Section (hereinafter as u/S) 482 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter as Cr.P.C) being aggrieved by the order dated 01.07.2022 in unregistered complaint case No.45/2021 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Distt. Indore (M.P.), whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the application u/S 91 and 202 of Cr.P.C, filed by the petitioner/complainant.

2. According to the case, the petitioner/complainant has filed a private complaint u/S 200 of Cr.P.C against the respondents/accused persons for the offence punishable u/S 420, 467, 468, 471, 408, 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter as IPC) contending that the petitioner being the chairman of Infantry School Vetan Bhogi Sahkari Sankh Sanstha (hereinafter as Institution) took a loan of Rs.4,00,000/- on 7.7.2015 and had issued a signed and blank cheque (cheque No.119270) in favour of the institution as a loan security. The respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 are chairman and accountant of institution respectively. The respondents, without the consent of the petitioner/complainant misused their power, committed forgery of the aforesaid cheque and illegally withdrew Rs.34,650/- from the bank account of the petitioner and deposited in the account of the institution. Thereafter, on 7.7.2016, the respondents deposited Rs.12,900/- in loan account of the petitioner and remaining amount Rs.7,850/-, Rs.7,750/- and Rs.7,650/- was illegally deposited in the account of Suresh, Ashok Kumar and Sachin Sharma. Thereby, the respondents have misused the aforesaid cheque and have illegally received the aforesaid amount.

3. The petitioner filed an application (Annexure P-9) u/S 91 and 202 of Cr.P.C to produce aforementioned cheque and concerning bank statement from manager/authorized officers of Indore Premium Cooperative bank, Branch Mhow, Ambedkar Nagar and to examine handwriting of the cheque from the handwriting expert.

4. Learned trial Court considering provision of section 20 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 has rejected the application.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint is based on the aforesaid cheque and the cheque is in possession of Indore Premium Cooperative bank, Branch Mhow, Ambedkar Nagar. Therefore, the production of the cheque is the most essential element of the case, but the trial Court without considering section 91 and section 202 of Cr.P.C has rejected the application. Therefore, impugned order is perverse and is also against the settled principle of law.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

7. For deciding the issue, in the present case, it is apposite to reproduce here sections 91 and 202 of Cr.P.C which run as under:-

“91. Summons to produce document or other thing.—

(1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order.

(2) Any person required under this section merely to produce a document or other thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed—

(a) to affect sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), or the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 (13 of 1891), or

(b) to apply to a letter, postcard, telegram or other document or any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authority.

202. Postponement of issue of process.—