HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Praveen Vaane – Appellant
Versus
Shailesh Desai – Respondent
MCRC 52950/2022
##PAGE1##
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8879
1 MCRC-52950-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
th
ON THE 30 OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 52950 of 2022
PRAVEEN VAANE
Versus
SHAILESH DESAI AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Priyam Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Abhishek Goswami- Advocate for respondent [R-1].
ORDER
This petition has been preferred by the petitioner/accused under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C against the impugned order dated 17-02-2022 passed
by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Burhanpur by which the application
filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 of Cr.P.C has been
dismissed by the trial Court, against which, the petitioner has preferred a
revision which was dismissed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge,
Burhanpur vide order dated 06-09-2022 in Cr.R No. 63/2022 on the ground
of maintainability.
2. A private complaint under Section 138 of NI Act is pending for
trial at the stage of respondent evidence against the petitioner. The petitioner
moved an application under Section 91 of Cr.PC before the trial Court with a
prayer for direction to the complainant to file the copy of income-tax return
as well as account of the firm, as those documents are of utmost relevance
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PARMESHWAR
GOPE
Signing time: 03-02-2026
10:27:29
##PAGE2##NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8879
2 MCRC-52950-2022
for deciding the controversy.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that those
documents are required for proper defence of the petitioner but, the trial
court has erroneously rejected the application without proper application of
mind. It is further submitted that those documents are necessary for fair trial
but, the trial Court has ignored this fact by rejecting the application of the
petitioner and therefore, he prayed that petition be allowed and impugned
order be set aside.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the trial Court
has passed reasoned order and has not committed any error. This petition has
been filed by the petitioner to procrastinate the trial using delay tactics.
5. Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
6. On perusal of the entire record, it reflects that the said application
has been filed at the stage of cross-examination of the complainant. The
complainant has not pleaded that he has returned all the money given by him
to the accused in the diary. So far as admission in question, the respondent
has admitted that in another case No. 620/17, he has maintained and kept the
account diary.
7. On perusal of the record, it clearly reflects that the complainant
has clearly stated in his evidence that he has account of money given by him
to the accused but, when the accused given him the cheque in question,
thereafter, he tore the account book and now he does not have any account
book or paper.
8. In the case of Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar and Anr. (Cri.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PARMESHWAR
GOPE
Signing time: 03-02-2026
10:27:29
##PAGE3##NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:8879
3 MCRC-52950-2022
appeal no. 1755 of 2010) it has been observed that once the execution of
cheque is admitted, presumptions under section 118 and section 139 of the
NI Act arise. Needless to mention that the presumption contemplated under
Section 139 of the NI Act, is a rebuttable presumption. However, the initial
onus of proving that the cheque is not in discharge of any debt or other
liability is on the accused/drawer of the cheque.
9. When these facts are taken into consideration, the trial court has
not committed any error by rejecting the application of the petitioner. No
perversity, illegality has been demonstrated warranting interference by this
Court.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order does not
suffer from any infirmity calling for exercise of inherent powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
11. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
PG
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PARMESHWAR
GO
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.