Smt. Khalida Afaq v. Vijay Kumar Chandel

4. Smt. Khalida Afaq, aged about 54 years, W/o Late Afaq Mohammad, Link Road, BUaspur (CG) AU R/o opposite to Raghuraj Singh Stadium Imlipara, Bus Stand Road, P.S. CivU Line, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) Versus Vijay Kumar Chandel, aged about 59 years, S/o late Arjun Singh Chandel, R/o Minocha Colony, P.S. CivU Line, Distt. BUaspur (CG) RESPONDENTS COMPLAINANT Shri Anand Kumar Tiwari, Adv. for fhe petitioner. Shri Amrito Das, Advocate, for the respondent. SB; HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICB N.K. AGARWAL ORDER (24-6-2009) The instant petition is dtrected against the order dated 12-1- 2009 passed in Criminal Complamt Case No. 1819/2008 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, BUaspur and also order dated 31-3- 2009 passed by the Addl. CMef Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur iii .fl-ff'T^ Iwi^^ Criminal Revision No. 85/2009, whereby fhe application of the petitioner for taMng documents on rccord has been rejected.

2. criminal complaint under Section As per fhe petitioners, fhe respondent/complainant filed a the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the petitioners before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur. The aforesaid case is pending adjudication aiid it has been registered as Ci'iminal Complaint Case No. 138 of 1819/2008.

3. On 22-12-2008, the petitioners ffled an application for taking documents on record in order to place beforc the Court a photocopy of fhe agi'eement dated 22-9-2005 entered into between fhe petitioners and the respondent regarding loan transaction ofRs. 50,000/- in which it is also mentioned that a Cheque No. 155051 was given to the respondent in security of the aforesaid loan of Rs. 50,000/- and also one docyment which is a copy of respondent?s statement ofaccount ofBank oflndia for the period from 25-6-2003 to 25-7-2006 showing various trainsactions between the petitioners and the respondent. As per the petitioners, the petitioners were not in possession of those documents earlier and after sincere efforts made by them, they coiild obtain the same aad so, there was a delay in filing the said documents ia the case in support of fheir defence.

4. Leamed trial Court vide order dated 12-1-2009 dismissed application petitioners holding petitioners/accused persons have not said anything regarding that agreement during recording of their statements before the Court and fhe reason assigned regarding delay in filing tiiose document are not satisfactory. The revisional Court vide order dated 31-3-2009 dismissed the revision affirming fhe finding recorded by the trial Cotirt. It was further recorded by the revisional Court in para 9 of its order that on 6-9-2007, respondent Vijay Kumar Chandel has been cross-examined at length by the petitioners and not a single question has been asked regarding alleged agreement dated 22-9-2005 nor any defence has been taken by the petitioners based on the said agreement Defence witnesses Atul F^rihar, Sunil Dafta, Dev Kuiuar Verma, Mohd. Aashik and Mohd.^Tarik were examined by the petitioners iu their defence and tiiere is not even a whisper about the said docuinent sought to be filed. The matter was adjoumed from ttiiie to time for examination of defence witnesses and about 19-20 opportunities have been afforded to the petitioners for their production and finally the matter was fixed for final ai^ument and thus, it was held by the revisional Court that the application has been prefeiTed in order to delay tfoe proceedings.

5. Shri Anand Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel petitioners submits fhat the documents sought to be produced by the petitioners are material in nature, goes to the root of the matter and, fherefore, ought to have been allowed to be produced in the case in support of defence of the petitioners. He fuilher subniits that to take appropnate defence in a criminal case is a valuable / fundaniental right of the accused/petitioners and the documents souglit to be fUed by the petitioners would reveal that the loan ofRs. 50,000/- has been given by the respondent to fhe petitioners and in security thereof, the cheque No. 155051 dated 22-9-2005 has been issued as security to the respondent/ complainant and, therefore, the claim preferred by the respondent by way of coraplaint aaaounting to Rs. 4,90,000/N- is false. He further contended that in view of Section 243 of Cr.P.C., fhe petitioners are entitled to produce relevant document at any stage of fhe proceedings and at tihis stage, only the relevancy of the document has to be seen. He places reliance upon the judgment -v- M.S. of fhe Supreme Court in Kalvani Baskar (Mrs.l r 1 tlWiiiiiaiNNigi^ CZP