IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA

th

ON THE 12 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 1091 of 2025 MAYURI EQUIPMENTS Versus SINGH CONSTRUCTIONS EQUIPMENTS AND MACHINERY PVT.

LTD.

Appearance:

Shri Hrithik Dixit - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Priyanka Tiwari - Advocate for respondent.

WITH MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 1078 of 2025 MAYURI EQUIPMENTS Versus SINGH CONSTRUCTIONS EQUIPMENTS AND MACHINERY PVT.

LTD.

Appearance:

Shri Hrithik Dixit - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Priyanka Tiwari - Advocate for respondent.

ORDER M.Cr.C No. 1091/2025 has been filed by the petitioner under Section

482 Cr.P.C/ 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashment of impugned orders dated 06- 12-2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur in SCNIA No. 880/16 (Annexure P/2) dated 21-10-2024 passed by 15th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in CRR No. 13/2024 ( Annexure -P/1).

2. M.Cr.C No. 1078/2025 has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C/528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashment of impugned orders dated 06-12-2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur in SCNIA No. 878/16 (Annexure- P/2) dated 21-10-2024 passed by 15th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in CRR No. 14/2024 ( Annexure -P/1).

3. In both the petitions, facts and question of law involved are similar in nature, therefore, they are being heard and disposed of by this Common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from M.Cr.C No. 1091/25.

4. The factual matrix of the present case is that as per complaint filed by the complainant under Section 138 of NI Act against the petitioner/accused which was registered on 05-06-2016 and is pending at the stage of evidence before the trial Court. During the proceedings, the complainant filed an application under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act,1872 dated 13-01-2023 stating that on 24-11-2022, while returning from court premises to his office, complainant accidentally misplaced his bag which contains the original documents i.e. Board resolution, questioned cheque, Account books, Bank memo and legal notice etc. have been lost and therefore, complainant filed a complaint before the police station Adhartal District Jabalpur. Thereafter, the complainant filed an application under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 before the trial Court.

5. After hearing both the parties, trial court passed the impugned order dated 06-12-2023 and allowed the application of the complainant and the photocopies were allowed as secondary evidence.

6. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, applicant filed a revision before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed by 15th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur vide order dated 21-10-2024.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that photocopy of documents presented by complainant were not matched with the original documents as is required for the purpose of secondary evidence. It was further argued that the trial Court as well as the Revisional Court passed the order erroneously in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, the said order is perverse and is liable to the set aside because photocopy of original documents were obtained by mechanical process and there cannot be surety or correctness in absence of any supporting material on record. It is further submitted that requirement of Section 63 and Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not complied with and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that both the courts have passed reasonable order. The photocopies of original documents were filed by the complainant at the initial stage of the trial and hence, photocopies were provided to the petitioner also prior to the filing of said application before the trial Court. It is further submitted that the trial Court after comparing the original documents, returned the original documents to the respondent. Therefore, requested to dismiss the petition.

9. Heard the l