Order on Board

15.01.2024

1. The petitioner has filed the present Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code assailing the order dated 27.06.2018 (Annexure - P/2) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in case No. 777/2013 in case of Assistant Account Officer, Dainik Haribhoomi vs. Nagendra Chaudhari, by which the learned Trial Court has rejected the application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. and also against the order dated 15.11.2018 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge of Special Court for Trial of C.B.I. Raipur in Criminal Revision No. 357/2018 by which the learned Revisional Court has dismissed the said revision petition.

2. The brief facts reflected from record are that the respondent has filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as the cheque given by the petitioner was bounced due to insufficient fund. The said complaint was registered as Criminal Case No. 574/2013 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur.

3. During pendency of the criminal proceedings, the petitioner moved an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. on 27.06.2018 wherein he has demanded production of certain documents by the complainant. The said application was rejected on 27.06.2018 on the count that the accused while defending his case under Section 254(2) of the Cr.P.C. can call for production of these documents. Being aggrieved with this order, the petitioner has preferred revision petition which has also been dismissed on 15.11.2018 by the revisional court on the count that the impugned order dated 27.06.2018 is interlocutory order and against the interlocutory order, revision is not maintainable.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the documents which were sought by the petitioner are relevant for adjudication by the Trial Court and the documents were not produced at the time of filing of the complaint, but it has been produced during the recording of the statement of the complainant and exhibited as Ex. P/3 which is reminder of earlier demand and in Ex. P/3, there are details of 7 advertisements, but it does not specify which advertisement was published on which date and the relevant documents and newspapers have also not been produced by the complainant.

As such, production of these documents is necessary for adjudication of the case and would pray for quashing of the impugned order.

5. Complainant/respondent has filed reply to the present Cr.M.P.

wherein in paragraph 4, it has been mentioned as under:- “4. That, the answering respondent would further submit, in the interest justice, equity and speedy trail, that the answering respondent, if the direction is given, is ready to produce the said document.”

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents place on record.

7. During course of argument, counsel for the respondent reiterating his stand taken in the reply would submit that they will supply the documents as demanded by the petitioner in the application filed on 27.06.2018. The impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First on 27.06.2018 and order dated 15.11.2018 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Special Judge of Special Court for trial of C.B.I. Raipur, are quashed. The documents as demanded by the accused be provided by the complainant.

8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this Criminal Misc.

Petition is allowed.