Rajesh Gupta v. Navneet Gupta) under Section

4. With the consent of the parties, application is being decided at the fresh stage.

5. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing order dated 09.05.2025 passed by Special Court 138 Ν.Ι. Act Kanpur Nagar in complaint case No.85960 of 2023 (Rajesh Gupta Vs Navneet Gupta) under Section 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. Feelkhana, District Kanpur Nagar and direct the court concern to grant the permission for hand writing expert opinion to prove that the signature of accused/applicant upon the agreement dated 30.06.2022.

6. The case set forth is that on 20.04.2023, a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act was lodged by the O.P. No.2 against the applicant with an allegation that the applicant and the O.P. No.2 were know to each other and the applicant had sought financial assistance and after persuasion the O.P. no.2 had advanced certain amount and in order to discharge a liability in so far as the present complaint is concerned, a cheque bearing number “252210” of an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was drawn. When the same was presented in the bank, it was dishonoured on the premise that the account was closed. A statutory demand notice was issued on 25.03.2023, which came to be served upon the applicant followed by the complaint on 20.04.2023. Thereafter, the applicant came to be summoned under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and on 10.01.2025, an application came to be preferred by the applicant before the court below under Section 254 CrPC read with Section 91 of CrPC to summon the letter / writing written over the Letter Head of the Firm ‘Tanu Metals’, which was given to the complainant/O.P. No.2 as well as the copy of Income Tax Returns for financial years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 of O.P. No.2. The said application was contested while filing objection on 30.01.2025 and the same came to be rejected on 09.05.2025.

7. Questioning the said order, present application has been filed.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the application preferred by the applicant on 10.01.2025 under Section 254 read with Section 91 of CrPC for summoning the letter / writing written over the Letter Head of the Firm ‘Tanu Metals’, given to the complainant/O.P. No.2 and the copy of the Income Tax Returns of the O.P. No.2 of the Financial Years 2020-21 and 2021-22 were of paramount importance and vital documents, which could bring truth on surface. Submission is that in order to conduct fair trial in the background of the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, the applicant accused had a valuable right to prove its case and by rejecting the said application, there has been violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Argument is that in the statement Under Section 251 CrPC, a specific statement has been made that the applicant accused had taken a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- on 10.03.2022 and he had given five cheques and on 12.05.2023, some of the cheques were not returned and other cheques were not returned. Learned counsel for the applicant thus submits that no prejudice whatsoever could have been caused in case application dated 10.01.2025 under Section 254 CrPC and 91 CrPC would have been allowed.

9. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel appearing for O.P. No.2 have countered the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, while contending that the statement under Section 313 CrPC had been recorded way back in the year 2024, the opportunity has as also accorded to the accused applicant for defence and the dates have been fixed from 28.10.2024 onwards and about 11 dates have passed. However, just for dialatory tactics in order to forestall the proceedings, such type of application has been filed. Submission is that the complainant O.P. No.2 has already submitted the Income Tax Returns of the years 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23. Thus it is prayed that the there is no infirmity in the order passed by the court below while rejecting the application.

10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records carefully.

11. Apparently, proceedings stood drawn under Section 138 of N.I. Act by O.P. No.2 against the applicant with respect to dishonouring of a cheque bearing number “252210”, a statutory demand notice was also issued and failing to make the payment, the complaint was lodged. Record reveals that the statement of the applicant accused under Section 251 of CrPC has already been recorded on 11.10.2023. Proceedings under Section 313 of CrPC stood concluded on 05.10.2024, opportunity to lead evidence and to put forward the opportunity to defence has been accorded to the accused applicant and 11 dates have been fixed since 28.10.2024. Importantly, the application under Section 254 CrPC read with Section 91 CrPC came to be filed on 10.01.2025 for summoning the letter/writing written over the letter head for the accused Firm ‘Tanu Metals’ and Income Tax Return of the O.P. No.2 complainant of the financial year 2020-21 and 2021-22. As a matter of fact, record reveals that post filing of the said application on 10.01.2025 and objection of the O.P. No.2 on 30.01.2025, the applicant did not appear for hearing. The next date fixed was

03.04.2025, however, on 03.04.2025, neither the applicant nor the counsel appeared to press the said application and the same was then fixed on 09.05.2025 and on date, nobody appeared on behalf of applicant and thus the order impugned rejecting the said application came to be passed. Interestingly, so far as prayer made in the application under Section 254 CrPC read with Section 91 CrPC for submission of the Income Tax Returns for the financial year 2020-21 and 2021-22 of the complainant is concerned, a specific finding has been recorded in the order impugned dated

09.05.2025 that the returns for the years 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021- 22 and 2022-23 has been filed and it is available on record as regards the writing on the letter head is concerned, while summoning the said document on a specific query being made to the learned counsel for the applicant as to what would be its relevance, the counsel for the applicant could not give any appropriate reply. Nonetheless, no reasons whatsoever are forthcoming either for the order impugned or from the argument of learned counsel for the applicant as to what was the reason for not pressing the said application before the court below which ultimately got rejected. It appears that the entire endeavour of the applicant is to somehow forestall the proceedings and to linger on the disposal of the case. Even otherwise, looking into the case from the four-corners of law, this Court is of the opinion that no justifiable reason has been set forth to invoke inherent jurisdiction.

12. Accordingly the application stands rejected and consigned to record. Order Date :- 4.7.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J)

4. With the consent of the parties, application is being decided at the fresh stage.

5. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing order dated 09.05.2025 passed by Special Court 138 Ν.Ι. Act Kanpur Nagar in complaint case No.85960 of 2023 (Rajesh Gupta Vs Navneet Gupta) under Section 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. Feelkhana, District Kanpur Nagar and direct the court concern to grant the permission for hand writing expert opinion to prove that the signature of accused/applicant upon the agreement dated 30.06.2022.

6. The case set forth is that on 20.04.2023, a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act was lodged by the O.P. No.2 against the applicant with an allegation that the applicant and the O.P. No.2 were know to each other and the applicant had sought financial assistance and after persuasion the O.P. no.2 had advanced certain amount and in order to discharge a liability in so far as the present complaint is concerned, a cheque bearing number “252210” of an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was drawn. When the same was presented in the bank, it was dishonoured on the premise that the account was closed. A statutory demand notice was issued on 25.03.2023, which came to be served upon the applicant followed by the complaint on 20.04.2023. Thereafter, the applicant came to be summoned under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and on 10.01.2025, an application came to be preferred by the applicant before the court below under Section 254 CrPC read with Section 91 of CrPC to summon the letter / writing written over the Letter Head of the Firm ‘Tanu Metals’, which was given to the complainant/O.P. No.2 as well as the copy of Income Tax Returns for financial years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 of O.P. No.2. The said application was contested while filing objection on 30.01.2025 and the same came to be rejected on 09.05.2025.

7. Questioning the said order, present application has been filed.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the application preferred by the applicant on 10.01.2025 under Section 254 read with Section 91 of CrPC for summoning the letter / writing written over the Letter Head of the Firm ‘Tanu Metals’, given to the complainant/O.P. No.2 and the copy of the Income Tax Returns of the O.P. No.2 of the Financial Years 2020-21 and 2021-22 were of paramount importance and vital documents, which could bring truth on surface. Submission is that in order to conduct fair trial in the background of the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, the applicant accused had a valuable right to prove its case and by rejecting the said application, there has been violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Argument is that in the statement Under Section 251 CrPC, a specific statement has been made that the applicant accused had taken a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- on 10.03.2022 and he had given five cheques and on 12.05.2023, some of the cheques were not returned and other cheques were not returned. Learned counsel for the applicant thus submits that no prejudice whatsoever could have been caused in case application dated 10.01.2025 under Section 254 CrPC and 91 CrPC would have been allowed.

9. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel appearing for O.P. No.2 have countered the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, while contending that the statement under Section 313 CrPC had been recorded way back in the year 2024, the opportunity has as also accorded to the accused applicant for defence and the dates have been fixed from 28.10.2024 onwards and about 11 dates have passed. However, just for dialatory tactics in order to forestall the proceedings, such type of application has been filed. Submission is that the complainant O.P. No.2 has already submitted the Income Tax Returns of the years 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23. Thus it is prayed that the there is no infirmity in the order passed by the court below while rejecting the application.

10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records carefully.

11. Apparently, proceedings stood drawn under Section 138 of N.I. Act by O.P. No.2 against the applicant with respect to dishonouring of a cheque bearing number “252210”, a statutory demand notice was also issued and failing to make the payment, the complaint was lodged. Record reveals that the statement of the applicant accused under Section 251 of CrPC has already been recorded on 11.10.2023. Proceedings under Section 313 of CrPC stood concluded on 05.10.2024, opportunity to lead evidence and to put forward the opportunity to defence has been accorded to the accused applicant and 11 dates have been fixed since 28.10.2024. Importantly, the application under Section 254 CrPC read with Section 91 CrPC came to be filed on 10.01.2025 for summoning the letter/writing written over the letter head for the accused Firm ‘Tanu Metals’ and Income Tax Return of the O.P. No.2 complainant of the financial year 2020-21 and 2021-22. As a matter of fact, record reveals that post filing of the said application on 10.01.2025 and objection of the O.P. No.2 on 30.01.2025, the applicant did not appear for hearing. The next date fixed was

03.04.2025, however, on 03.04.2025, neither the applicant nor the counsel appeared to press the said application and the same was then fixed on 09.05.2025 and on date, nobody appeared on behalf of applicant and thus the order impugned rejecting the said application came to be passed. Interestingly, so far as prayer made in the application under Section 254 CrPC read with Section 91 CrPC for submission of the Income Tax Returns for the financial year 2020-21 and 2021-22 of the complainant is concerned, a specific finding has been recorded in the order impugned dated

09.05.2025 that the returns for the years 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021- 22 and 2022-23 has been filed and it is available on record as regards the writing on the letter head is concerned, while summoning the said document on a specific query being made to the learned counsel for the applicant as to what would be its relevance, the counsel for the applicant could not give any appropriate reply. Nonetheless, no reasons whatsoever are forthcoming either for the order impugned or from the argument of learned counsel for the applicant as to what was the reason for not pressing the said application before the court below which ultimately got rejected. It appears that the entire endeavour of the applicant is to somehow forestall the proceedings and to linger on the disposal of the case. Even otherwise, looking into the case from the four-corners of law, this Court is of the opinion that no justifiable reason has been set forth to invoke inherent jurisdiction.

12. Accordingly the application stands rejected and consigned to record. Order Date :- 4.7.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J)