NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

CRMP No. 254 of 2017

• Dinesh Agrawal S/o Late Kishan Lal Agrawal Proprietor - Dinesh

Enterprises, R/o E- 424, Behind Goyal Nursing Home, Radhakrishna

Mandir Road, Samta Colony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 9981169306

---- Petitioner (Accused)

Versus

• Suresh Kumar Mahapatra S/o Late Shri Goverdhan Mahapatra R/o

Shivanand Nagar, Sector- 3, Kargil Chowk, Shrinagar, Khamtarai, Raipur,

Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent

For Petitioner

:

Shri D.K. Gwalre, Advocate

Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice

Order On Board

27/02/2017

1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. impugning

the order dated 28.1.2017 passed by the 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge,

Raipur in Criminal Revision No.33/2017 dismissing the revision as not

maintainable filed by the petitioner against the order dated 26.11.2016

passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Raipur in Criminal Complaint

Case No.780/16 rejecting the application of the petitioner filed under

Section 91 Cr.P.C.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent herein filed a complaint

case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

(henceforth 'the Act of 1881')

inter alia

pleading that the

complainant/respondent is engaged in the business of finance, he

advanced a loan of Rs.1 Lakh to the petitioner and in lieu thereof the

petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.222411 dated 17.2.2016 drawn on

ICICI Bank in favour of the complainant. It is further stated by the

complainant / respondent that on presentation of said cheque for

encashment, it was not encashed and thus it was dishonoured with an

endorsement that the accused/petitioner had no requisite amount to his

credit in his bank account. The complainant/respondent therefore,

through his counsel, served a registered notice dated 26.2.2016 on the

accused/petitioner, which was duly served on him on 29.2.2016,

demanding the cheque amount within 15 days from the receipt of the

notice. The accused/petitioner herein did not comply with the notice but

sent a reply dated 12.3.2016 making false allegations. The complainant/

respondent, therefore, filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Act of

1881.

During the pendency of proceedings, on 9.8.2016 the

accused/petitioner filed an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for

directing the complainant/respondent to supply the balance sheets of M/s

Goverdhan Mahapatra & Sons from the year 2013 to 2016, details of bank

account, passbook, income tax returns, copy of money lender's license

and all other relevant documents as filed by the complaint along with the

complaint, to the petitioner. The complainant orally objected this

application by stating that the documents necessary for adjudication of the

matter have already been filed.

3. The trial Court after hearing the arguments of the parties rejected the said

application on the ground that present proceeding is primarily based upon

issuance and dishonour of the cheque issued under the signature of the

accused and unless the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed that the

cheque was issued for discharging any liability. It has also been held that

the complainant has already filed the necessary documents along with the

complaint and the documents sought to be summoned by the accused are

not necessary or desirable for the just decision of the case. Feeling

aggrieved therewith the petitioner has preferred a criminal revision and the

same has also been dismissed as not maintainable by the revisional Court

on the ground that the order passed by the trial Court refusing to summon

the documents under Section 91 CrPC was interlocutory order and as

such, the revision against that order is clearly barred under the law. It is

these orders which have been challenged by the petitioner in this petition

under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4. I have heard counsel for the petit