The High Court's power under Article 227 is limited to instances of jurisdictional error by lower courts and cannot bypass existing appellate remedies.

1. Heard on admission.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner / accused under Art.227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 29.11.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal in RCT / 9808370/2012 whereby the petitionerâ's application under S.91 of Cr.P.C. for production of income tax return of the complainant has been rejected.

3. In brief the facts of the case are that a private complaint under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been filed by the respondent against the petitioner in the Court of JMFC Bhopal wherein the petitioner has filed an application under S.91 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer that the complainant be directed to produce the income tax returns for the year 2011-12 and 2012-13, as the defence of the accused is that the complainant had no money to pay him and has made a false admission in his statement before the Court that he had received Rs.6,40,000/- as income. Thus in order to ascertain proper income of the petitioner, the aforesaid income tax returns have been sought in his defence.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court and has submitted that the learned JMFC has erred in dismissing the petitioner's application and has not exercised jurisdiction properly. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Dyechem Vs. State of Gujara and others, reported in 2012 (13) SCC 375 .

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that present petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed at the thresh hold only as the matter relates to the proceeding of the Criminal Court wherein the petitioner's application under S.91 of Cr.P.C has been dismissed. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner has a remedy under the Cr.P.C. by way of criminal revision or a petition under S.482 of Cr.P.C. and without availing the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Art.227 of the , which is not maintainable. It is further submitted that even on merits the petitioner has no case, as the complainant in his cross examination has admitted that he has not shown Rs.6,40,000/- as his income in the income tax returns, hence there was no occasion for the trial Court to summon the aforesaid documents. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash Sharma Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Delhi, reported in AIR 2000 SC 2335 .

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is apparent that the present case has arisen out of a criminal case filed under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act . It is a settled law that the powers under Art.227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked only when the powers are exercised by the District Courts without jurisdiction or in excess their jurisdiction. Reference may be made to the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil , 2010 (8) SCC 329 , the relevant para 49 is reproduced as under: -

"49. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles on the exercise of High Court's jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution may be formulated:

(a) A petition under Art.226 of the Constitution is different from a petition under Art.227. The mode of exercise of power by the High Court under these two articles is also different.

(b) In any event, a petition under Art.227 cannot be called a