Om Prakash Soni vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

Instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 05.02.2019 passed by the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.6, Jodhpur Metropolitan whereby, the learned trial court rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has grossly erred in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner as the petitioner is an accused and he wants to produce Bank account details of the complainant as well as Income tax returns. In the cross-examination of the complainant PW/1 Kanhaiyal lal clearly admits that he maintained the Bank account as well as Income tax returns and if Court orders, then he may be permitted to submit the same before the court. Thus, the trial court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner without assigning any cogent reason. It is argued that for the purpose of proving innocence of the petitioner, these documents are required to be brought on record. Thus, it is prayed that the impugned order dt. 05.02.2019 passed by the trial Court may kindly be quashed and a direction may be issued to the trial Court to summon the documents as prayed for by the petitioner.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 complainant submits that earlier the accused filed an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. which was rejected by the trial court on 08.01.2019. Thereafter, on the same facts a second application was filed which was rejected by the trial court. Learned counsel also produced certified copy of the application which was filed by the accused in which he clearly admitted that he wants to give the amount to the complainant and he does not want to cross-examine the complainant. This application was on record but later on the accused did not pursue the said application and resiled from the said application. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the court below has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order and the order passed by the trial Court dt. 05.02.2019 is not liable to be interfered with.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

The proceedings under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act are pending against the petitioner in the trial court and earlier one application was filed by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. which was dismissed on 08.01.2019 and on the same facts again an application was filed by the accused which has been dismissed. It has also come on record that accused petitioner filed an application before the trial court mentioning therein that he wants to give the cheque amount to the complainant and he does not want to cross-examine him but later on he withdrew the said application which shows that the petitioner wants to delay the matter on one or other ground.

So far as the position of law, in respect of summoning of documents, during the course of pendency of trial or summoning of witnesses by the Courts, is concerned, there is no dispute that in a given case, if the facts and circumstances of that case require summoning of documents for just decision of a case or if any person is required to be summoned as a witness for just decision of the case, the Court has ample power to summon the documents or to summon a person as witness as per the provisions of Sections 91 and 311 Cr.P.C. It is also not in dispute that in ordinary course, an accused must be granted opportunity to put his defence in proper manner and for that purpose a reasonable opportunity should be provided to him or her. However, in the present case, from the conduct of the petitioner it seems that the petitioner has filed the application only with an intention to delay the matter.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is called for in the order impugned. Hence, this misc. petition is hereby dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed.