[2026:RJ-JD:7694]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 8153/2025 Prakash Sangappa S/o Shri Sawanha Ali Agasi Oni, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Honganhalli, Bijapur, Karnataka-586108 (Rajasthan)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Firm Mistri Balwant Singh And Sons, New Dhan Mandi, Anupgarh Through Its Proprietor Gurpreet Singh, S/o Balwant Singh, Resident Of Chak 3 P. Tehsil- Anupgarh, District- Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ratish Bhatnagar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, PP Mr. Jitendra Mohan Choudhary HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

11/02/2026 The present criminal miscellaneous petition has been preferred, being aggrieved by the order dated 27.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anupgarh, in Criminal Case No. 735/2018, whereby the learned trial Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were initiated by the complainant in respect of a cheque amounting to Rs. 26,60,700/-. It is contended that during the course of the trial, an application was filed stating that since no details of the transaction between the parties had been brought on record by the complainant, the proceedings under Section 138 could not be continued. It is further submitted that the complainant was required to bring on record the business transactions between the parties, including invoice bills, cash book entries, etc., in support of his case.

Learned counsel submits that in cross-examination, the complainant admitted that no such documents had been placed on record. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vijay v. Laxman & Anr., reported in (2013) 3 SCC 86. It is thus submitted that the application has been wrongly rejected and the entire proceedings deserve to be quashed and set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order and no ground is made out for quashing the entire proceedings. It is submitted that the complainant has placed sufficient material on record in support of the complaint and, therefore, the application has rightly been rejected.

This Court has considered the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties and has perused the complaint as well as the statements recorded before the learned trial Court. The contention of the petitioner that in the absence of detailed transaction records, including invoice bills and cash book entries, the complaint cannot be sustained is devoid of merit and cannot be accepted.

The proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are initiated for dishonour of a cheque on the ground of insufficiency of funds. The complainant has specifically alleged that there existed business transactions between the parties. If the complainant fails to substantiate his claim or fails to bring relevant documents on record, the benefit thereof would be available to the accused during the course of trial and at the stage of final adjudication. However, mere non-production of certain documents at this stage cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings. The matter is required to be adjudicated on merits after the parties lead evidence. If a party fails to prove his case by leading appropriate evidence, the learned trial Court is to consider the same at the time of final decision.

This Court has also considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vijay v. Laxman & Anr. (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where the complainant’s version regarding the transaction is inconsistent, unsupported by material particulars, and gives rise to serious doubt as to the existence of a legally enforceable debt, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stand rebutted. The said judgment, h