Amantaran Jewelers A Proprietorship Firm v. Shrimati Ganga Bandhe

Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate Mr. Syed Imtiaz Ali, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 13/11/2025

1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally.

2. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following prayer:- It is therefore humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash impugned order dated ASHUTOSH MISHRA ASHUTOSH MISHRA

05.07.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed in Criminal Case No.- 1434/2021 and may kindly be allow the petitioner application for exhibiting the relevant documents, in the interest of justice. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice.

3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 05.07.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Class I Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, C.G. in Criminal Case No.- 1434/2021, whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for exhibiting the relevant documents.

4. The brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner is the proprietorship firm represented through its proprietor namely Sanket Lunawat. The petitioner instituted a case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, against the respondent alleging that the respondent had purchased gold and silver jewelries from the shop of the petitioner and has not paid the consideration amount and when she was asked to pay the consideration amount, she has given a cheque of Rs. 5,58,421/- dated 14.03.2021 to the petitioner in satisfaction of the consideration amount. However, the cheque bounced due to insufficient funds and hence the petitioner instituted the case against the respondent under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The petitioner on

21.06.2021 submitted the list of documents which he wanted to exhibit before the learned trial court in order to prove his case and in the said list of documents the petitioner has attached the copy of the licenses under the shop and registration act and copy of the bills. After service of notice the respondent appeared before the court denied the liability and thereafter the case was fixed on 23.04.2024 for recording of evidence of the petitioner/ complainant. On the said date the petitioner has submitted his affidavit regarding the examination in chief and exhibited the documents as per the list of document filed by him, however the document relating to licenses and bill could not be exhibited by the petitioner since the original was not available and hence the same could not be exhibited on the said date. On 23.04.2024 the cross examination of the plaintiff could not be done because the respondent has moved an application under Section 91 and therefore the cross examination of the petitioner was adjourned. Thereafter the case was listed on various Miscellaneous Application filed by the respondent and a perusal of the order sheet of the trial court would show that the case was listed on hearing on the application filed by the respondent and during the said hearings the petitioner has filed an application for exemption from personal appearance on account of family emergencies which has been allowed by this court. On 24.06.2025 the petitioner moved an application seeking the permission of the court to exhibit the document relating to licenses and bill assigning the reason that the same could not be exhibited on the last date and the case is fixed for cross examination of the complainant / petitioner and hence the same may be allowed. Learned trial Court vide order dated 05.07.2025 dismissed the application of the petitioner on the ground that 11 hearings have taken place since 23.04.2024 and therefore it is apparent on the record that the application of the petitioner is belated and not bonafide and thus rejected the application of the petitioner for exhibiting the relevant documents. Hence this petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the complainant / petitioner herein in his list of document has mentioned about the said document and on 23.04.2024 the same could not be exhibited since the original was not available which shows that there was no delay on part of the petitioner in exhibiting the documents and the same could not be exhibited due to bonafide reason. He would next contend that the learned trial court has not considered the relevant order sheet which shows that after the date on 23.04.2024 the instant case has been listed on hearing on the application filed by the respondent and hence the finding of the trial court that 11 times the case was listed and the petitioner has not sought the permission of the court for exhibiting the documents earlier is totally without due application of mind and perverse. He would next contend that the complainant/ petitioner as per the facts and circumstances of the case due to bonafide reasons supported by sufficient cause could not exhibit the documents and hence the same was required to be condoned by the trial court by taking a liberal view and not a hyper technical view. He would lastly contend that, the learned trial Court ought to have considered the order sheet whereby considering the bonafide of the applications of the petitioner for granting personal exemption from appearance has allowed the same and it is also submitted that the petitioner due to accident sustained injuries in knees due to which he was under treatment from September, 20204 till January, 2025 and hence the learned trial court ought not to have recorded contrary finding that the petitioner was not vigilant in pursuing the case.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the order of the trial Court is well merited which do not call for any interference.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection.

8. Perusal of the documents would show that the petitioner seeks to produce licences and bills which directly relate to the transaction in question. These documents may assist the Court in appreciating whether the acts attributed to the petitioner were carried out in the course of authorised business, therefore, its relevance, cannot be discarded at the threshold. Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to summon and permit production of any document necessary or desirable for the just decision of the case. The expression “necessary or desirable” has been interpreted liberally by the Courts so that all material essential for discovering the truth is brought on record. Procedural technicalities should not override the substantive right of a fair trial. The trial Court must ensure that procedural technicalities do not override the substantive right of fair trial and all the relevant materials essential to determine the truth of the transaction are available for judicial scrutiny

9. In view of the considered view of this Court the trial Court rejected the application without analyzing the relevance or probative value of the documents. A bare rejection merely on the ground of belated production or apprehension of delay cannot be sustained. Belatedness is not, by itself, a ground to refuse production, particularly when the documents form part of the foundational defence. If the documents sought are exculpatory or capable of explaining the conduct of the petitioner, denying their production may prejudice the defence and result in an incomplete factual record. Courts have consistently held that the right to defend cannot be curtailed except for compelling reasons, which are absent in the present case and no element of surprise or prejudice is shown to be caused to the respondent. The respondent will have full opportunity to inspect the documents, challenge their admissibility, and cross-examine the petitioner regarding their authenticity or relevance. Therefore, no irreversible prejudice would ensue by allowing the application.

10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the application preferred by the petitioner seeking permission to exhibit the documents relating to the relevant licenses and bills is allowed. The order passed by the trial Court rejecting the said application is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to take the aforesaid documents on record and permit the petitioner to exhibit them in accordance with law, so that all material essential for determining the truth of the transaction remains available for judicial scrutiny. This permission is, however, made subject to the petitioner depositing cost of ₹2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only), payable to the respondent, within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Upon deposit of the cost, the trial Court shall proceed further in accordance with law.

11. Accordingly, the instant CRMP stands allowed to the extent indicated above. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE