Back
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
Ashok Kumar Jain – Appellant
Versus
Rishabh Kumar Jain – Respondent
MCRC 5841/2024
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was facing trial for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A family settlement had taken place, and the original copy of the settlement was in the possession of the respondent, while the applicant had only a photocopy. The applicant filed an application under section 91 of the CrPC for the production of the original copy of the settlement, but it was rejected by the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the family settlement was not relevant to the controversy in the proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and that the trial court did not commit any jurisdictional error by rejecting the application.
Issues: Whether the family settlement was relevant to the controversy in the proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the family settlement was not relevant to the controversy in the proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act because it was not a registered partition deed and was not executed before the date of the cheque in dispute.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application.
ORDER
This application under section 482 of CrPC has been filed against the order dated 3.10.2023 passed by JMFC, Damoh in SCNIA No.199/2017 by which the application filed by the applicant under section 91 of CrPC was dismissed as well as against the order dated 22.1.2024 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh in Criminal Revision No.59/2023 by which the revision filed by the applicant against the order dated 3.10.2023 passed by the trial court has been dismissed.
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that the applicant is facing trial for offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. A family settlement had taken place and original copy of the said settlement is in possession of the respondent; whereas the applicant is in possession of only photocopy of the said document. Earlier he had filed an application for leading secondary evidence. However, the said application was rejected. Now he has filed an application under section 91 of CrPC for production of the original copy of settlement. However, by the impugned order it has been rejected. It is submitted that it is incorrect to say that the family settlement has nothing to do with the cheque in question.
3. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for applicant. 4. The applicant has filed a copy of the unregistered family settlement, which is a partition in presenti and it is not an acknowledgment of partition.
5 . Furthermore, it is submitted by counsel for applicant that family settlement took place on 1.5.2016; whereas according to the complainant the cheque in dispute was issued on 6.7.2017 i.e. after 1 year and 2 months. 6. Therefore, the trial court did not commit any mistake to hold that even otherwise the family settlement has nothing to do with the controversy in proceeding under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
7. Since the documents, sought by the applicant, was not relevant and it is also not a registered partition deed, no jurisdictional error was committed by the trial court by rejecting the application.
8. Accordingly, the order dated 3.10.2023 passed by JMFC, Damoh in SCNIA No.199/2017 and order dated 22.1.2024 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh in Criminal Revision No.59/2023 are hereby affirmed. 9. The application fails and is hereby dismissed. (G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE TG /- Signature Not Verified Signed by: TRUPTI GUNJAL Signing time: 21-03-2024 18:12:08
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
