Shiv Narayan Jagetiya vs State And Ors

Petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. claiming the following relief :-

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this criminal misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 07.09.2018 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the desired documents may kindly be ordered to be summoned from their respective offices / departments."

The petitioner / complainant has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against respondent No.2 / accused. The petitioner moved an application before the learned court below under Sections 91 and 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking production of certain documents and re-examination of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner / complainant submits that there is a wider scope of interference under Sections 91 and 311 of Cr.P.C., and hence, the learned court below ought to have allowed the said application, as the documents and re-examination sought for were necessary for appropriate adjudication of the case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the factum of proprietorship of the petitioner has been mentioned in the original complaint itself and thus, supporting documents cannot be denied to be produced on record at this stage.

Learned counsel for the respondent has, however, submitted that the petitioner had ample opportunity to put the documents on record and make the necessary examination, but the petitioner has failed to do so. However, at the fag end of the trial, the petitioner is trying to delay the same and apart thereform, he is trying to fill up the lacuna, which has come to his knowledge only after filing of the written statement by the respondent No.2.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that the complaint was filed on 27.10.2014, and thereafter, the cognizance was taken by the learned court below on 05.12.2014. The charges were framed on 22.05.2015 and the evidence of the petitioner / complainant was completed on 29.01.2016 and 09.06.2016. On 02.07.2018 the petitioner / complainant filed aforementioned application under Sections 91 and 311 of Cr.P.C. The written statement has been filed by the respondent No.2 on 11.07.2018 whereby specific objection regarding such documents has been taken.

As far as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner / complainant that the averments so made by the petitioner would definitely entitle him to bring the said documents on record, this Court finds that since more than five years have elapsed and the trial is reaching its fag end, therefore, it is not the right time to seek production of such documents on record.

This Court also finds that bonafidely, the petitioner / complainant could have completed the same task, as prayed by him in the application under Sections 91 and 311 of Cr.P.C., at an earlier stage, and therefore, the prayer now made by the petitioner by moving such application at the fag end of the trial is nothing but an attempt to fill up the lacuna. Thus, the impugned order passed by learned court below is well justified and the same calls for no interference by this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Consequently, the present misc. petition is dismissed.