SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 2062

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Praveen Vaane – Appellant
Versus
Shailesh Desai – Respondent
MCRC 52950/2022



Advocates:
Virendra Singh Choudhary,

##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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top