ORDER

1. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner/accused being aggrieved by the order dated 8.11.2023 passed in case No.1384/2018 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class- Ujjain whereby an application under section 91 of the Cr.P.C. filed by him has been rejected.

2. The facts in brief are that the respondent/complainant has filed a criminal complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioner/accused before the trial Court. He has submitted that he and the accused are relatives and are known to each other. In 2013 they were residing at Dubai. In October, 2013 accused was in need of money hence took Rs.2,76,00000/- from the complainant on loan saying he would return the same within six months. Subsequently the complainant came back to India from Dubai. When he demanded money from the accused he issued a cheque dated 23.7.2018 in a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs in his favour drawn on State Bank of India, Branch Sabarmati, Ahmedabad. When the complainant presented the cheque for encashment the same was returned dishonored with the endorsement that payment thereupon has been stopped. The complainant thereafter issued the statutory notice to the accused but despite receipt of the same the amount of the cheque has not been paid by him to the complainant. On such avernmnt the complaint has been preferred by the complainant before the trial Court.

3. During the course of proceedings before the trial Court the complainant was examined as PW.1 in which he stated that presently he is carrying on the business of School Uniform which he has been doing for past 2-3 years. Prior to that he was living in Dubai where he was having readymade garments business as a proprietor from 2007 up to 2017. He admitted that he has not filed any document as regards his business from the year 1987 up to 2017 at Dubai. He admitted that he had a bank account in Rasalam Khema Bank. He does not remember the details of bank account but will inform the same when the details of the account are produced. He stated that up to 2007 his salary were 400 Dirham per month. He has further stated that he has not filed any document as regards his income from the year 2007 up to 2017 and is not aware of his income for that period. Though he stated that he has a bank statement of the bank account of his firm at Dubai which he can give but has not done so.

4. Thereafter the accused filed an application under section 91 of the Cr.P.C. for directing the complainant to produced the account book of his firm “Wall Mark Trading”, income tax return, account statements and other related documents particularly when he has contended that he has given a huge sum of Rs.2,76,00,000/- to the accused. The application was contested by the complainant by filing his reply to the same and has been rejected by the trial Court by the impugned order by observing that the complaint is in respect of a cheque of Rs.10 Lakhs and the transaction of Rs.2,76,00,000/- between the parties does not have any bearing upon the matter. The documents which are desired by the accused are not relevant for the determination of the disputes in the present case.

5. Learned counsel for the accused has submitted that the complainant has contended to have advanced a huge sum of Rs.2,76,00,000/- to the accused towards repayment of which the cheque in question was allegedly issued by the accused to the complainant. Though in his cross examination the complainant has admitted that he has the documents as regards the bank account at Dubai i.e. during the period when such advancement of amount was made by him to the accused, but he has not produced the same. The proof of financial capacity of the complainant to have advanced such an amount to the accused is very much a relevant factor and is a crucial piece of defence of the accused which cannot be denied to him. Though the cheque is of a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs but the genesis of the transaction