Rakesh Kumar Garg v. Jayesh Shah) under Section
Legal Reasoning
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ***** (Sl No.10) Court No. - 79 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19702 of 2024 Applicant :- Jayesh Shah Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anup Singh,Ravi Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Ravi Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 24.05.2024 in Complaint Case No. 1262 of 2017 (Rakesh Kumar Garg vs. Jayesh Shah) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, 'the N.I. Act'), P.S.- Banna Devi, District- Aligarhh and and direct the trial court to summon the records of the Complaint Case No. 2237 of 2019 (Rakesh Kumar Garg vs. Jayesh Shah), P.S.- Gandhi Park, District- Aligarh, pending before Officer/Additional Court, Aligarh. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that vide impugned order dated 24.05.2024, his application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the trial court whereby he has asked for a direction to the complainant to produce bank statements of various accounts, in which allegedly the applicant herein has deposited the amount. Further, it was prayed that the record of the Case No. 2237 of 2019 may also be summoned and the aforesaid application has been dismissed by the trial court concerned holding that the burden is on the applicant herein to prove the fact that there was no liability on his part towards the complainant and in discharge of his burden the applicant has not produced any document whatsoever. Therefore, the trial has refused to pass any direction as prayed by applicant herein. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the instant application has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the aforesaid observation of the trial court, that he has not filed any document, is an erroneous observation and the instant application has been wrongly rejected and serious prejudice will be caused to the applicant herein if the documents, which has been asked by the applicant are not produced before the trial court. In view thereof, the applicant herein seeks quashing of the order dated 24.05.2022 and prays for a direction to the complainant to produce the relevant documents and also to summon the original documents of Complaint Case No. 2237 of 2019. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that subsequent to the instant complaint case, Complaint Case No. 2237 of 2019, filed by the opposite party no.2 with regard to the another cheque issued by the applicant herein, which was settled in Lok Adalat on 11.09.2021. Therefore, the documents of the aforesaid case are also relevant to the instant case. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A for the State submits that the settlement in Complaint Case No. 2237 of 2019 was only with regard to that cheque in question. Since, the instant case was filed prior to that case, the liability of this case has never been settled by the applicant herein and the aforesaid settlement in Complaint Case No. 2237 of 2019 cannot have any relevance to the instant complaint case. Learned A.G.A. further submits that from the observations of the trial court it is apparent that the case is already fixed for final hearing since 2022, after the recording of the statement of the applicant herein under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the complaint case was filed in the year, 2017 and every attempt is being made by the applicant herein to delay the trial. Therefore, no interference is called for in the instant case. 7. Having heard the rival submissions made by learned counsels for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. From the record of the case, it is apparent that the instant complaint case was filed by the opposite party no.2 on 24.08.2017 and the applicant herein was summoned on 11.01.2018. Since, the applicant did not appear during the trial of the case, the non-bailable warrants were issued against him, which was executed and the applicant was arrested and produced before the trial court on 02.08.2019, and he was released on bail. His Statement was recorded on 24.09.2019. The complaint has filed his evidence by way of affidavit on 03.10.2019 and the applicant herein has deliberately delayed the cross-examination of the complainant witness for about three years, thereupon, the trial court was constrained to close an opportunity of cross-examination by the accused on 01.04.2024. Thereafter, an application was moved by the applicant herein seeking an opportunity to cross-examine the Prosecution Witness no.1 (PW-1), which was allowed vide order dated 19.04.2022, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 300/- and thereafter the cross-examination of the complainant witness was done on 13.05.2022. 8. On 30.11.2022, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded and the matter was fixed for defence evidence, however, the applicant did not produce any document in support of his case. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final hearing. After the matter was fixed for final hearing, the applicant herein has moved an application seeking his discharge on 15.03.2023, which was rejected on 12.06.2023. Against the rejection of the discharge application the applicant has approached this Court by filing an Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which was also rejected by this Court. Subsequently thereto, the applicant herein has moved an application seeking to file the documents, which was allowed vide order 30.10.2023, allowing the applicant herein to produce the relevant documents in support of his case. Subsequent thereto, the instant application has been filed by the applicant herein, now, seeking a direction to the complainant to produce the documents, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 24.05.2024. As per the earlier application seeking permission to file the documents has already been granted by the trial court concerned. So far as the record of the Complaint Case No. 2237 of 2019 is concerned, the applicant was free to file certified copies of the relevant record of the said case, however, the same has not been produced by the applicant herein. Otherwise also, to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act and to establish that there was no liability on the part of the applicant the burden is on the applicant, which is required to be discharged by the applicant herein and the complainant cannot be directed to produce the documents as prayed by the applicant herein. From the aforesaid conduct of the applicant, it appears that the applicant herein is making continuous attempts to delay the trial of the case by moving one application after another. 9. In view thereof, this Court does not find any good reason to entertain the instant application and the same is accordingly rejected. However, the trial court is directed to proceed in the matter at the earliest in accordance with law. Order Date :- 4.9.2024 Shubham Arya (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.)