Writ Petition No. 82 of 2026 · High Court

16 CRI WP NO. 82 OF 2026IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 82 OF 20261]M/s Ascent Ventures A Partnership Firm registered U/Partnership Act, having it’s Office at Plot No. G-8, First Floor,Town Center, Above Dwarkadas Shamkumar Showroom,Opp. YSK Hospital, N-6 Aurangabad.Through Petitioner No.22]Sameer Ramanlal BhandariAge : 46 Yrs. Occupation : Business,R/o. Plot No. G-8, First Floor, Town Center,Above Dwarkadas Shamkumar Showroom,Opp. YSK Hospital, N-6 Aurangabad3]Darshana Sameer BhandariAge : 44 Yrs. Occupation : Business,R/o: As above4]Ramanlal Chunnilal BhandariAge : 85 Yrs. Occupation : BusinessR/o: As above… PetitionersVERSUS1]The State Of MaharashtraHigh Court of Bombay,Bench at Aurangabad.2]Dr. Sachin Gopalrao SaojiAge : 53 Yrs. Occupation : Doctor,R/o: 32, Shiniketan Colony, AurangabadDist : Aurangabad… Respondents…•Mr. S. S. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioners•Ms. P. J. Bharad, APP for Respondent No. 1 - State•Mr. P. F. Patni, Advocate for Respondent No. 2…CORAM :MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.RESERVED ON:23.03.2026PRONOUNCED ON:18.04.2026Jhs/1/13 16 CRI WP NO. 82 OF 2026JUDGMENT :1.The petitioners have filed the present petition seeking quashingand setting aside of the order dated 14.11.2025 passed below Exh. 36in S.C.C. No. 6253 of 2019 by the learned 11th Additional ChiefJudicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, and for allowing Exh. 36 in the saidproceedings.SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONERS :-2.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the accusedhave filed an application under Section 294 of the Code of CriminalProcedure seeking permission to produce certain documents and for adirection to the complainant to admit or deny the said documents. Itis submitted that the transactions between the parties pertain to aregistered sale deed dated 25.07.2012 in respect of a portion of landbearing Gat No. 15 situated at Fatehpur, Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad.The said sale deed has been deliberately suppressed by thecomplainant. It is further submitted that there was a clear assurancegiven by the complainant that if the area of the land purchased isfound to be less than what was agreed upon, the complainant wouldproportionately reduce the price of the land. The said sale deed dated25.07.2012 was subsequently corrected vide correction deed dated05.09.2014. The petitioners, therefore, filed an application seekingpermission to produce the following documents:-Jhs/2/13 16 CRI WP NO. 82 OF 2026A. Sale Deed dated 25.07.2012B. Correction Deed dated 05.09.2014C. Revised Development Permission dated 18.10.2012D. Revised Development Permission dated 28.09.2023E. TILR Map showing revised demarcated layout on Gat No. 14F. Divyamarathi Newspaper dated 19.05.20143.It is submitted that the aforesaid documents are relevant forthe defence of the petitioners and would assist them in substantiatingtheir defence. It is further submitted that though the said documentswere not filed earlier, the petitioners ought to be permitted to placethem on record.4.Learned counsel further submits that in view of Section 294Cr.P.C., a direction ought to be issued to the complainant to admit ordeny the said documents. It is submitted that similar applicationshave been filed in all the four complaints instituted by thecomplainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENTS :-5.The complainant has filed a say opposing the application underSection 294 Cr.P.C., contending that the same is not tenable in law. Itis submitted that Section 294 Cr.P.C. only contemplates admission ordenial of documents and does not provide for production ofadditional documents. Hence, the application deserves to be rejected.6.The learned counsel for the respondent further submits thatJhs/3/13 16 CRI WP NO. 82 OF 2026the present complaint was filed in the year 2019 and that, for thefirst time, the petitioners have now raised the issue of reliance uponthe sale deed and correction deed, only with an intention to protractthe proceedings. It is further submitted that an earlier criminal casefiled by the complainant in the year 2017 for dishonour of sevencheques came to be compromised between the parties, pursuant towhich the petitioners issued further cheques towards settlement. Outof the said 13 cheques, four cheques of Rs. 8,00,000/- each weredishonoured, and therefore, the present complaint, along with threeother complaints, came to be filed.7.Thus, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that thedishonour of the present cheques pertains to the compromise arrivedat between the parties on 16.09.2017, after the initial complaintunder Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed in theyear 2017 for dishonour of seven cheques, one of which is S.C.C. No.4558 of 2017. It is, therefore, submitted that the documents soughtto be brought on record have no relevance to the adjudication of thepresent complaint, which pertains solely to the dishonour of thecheques issued pursuant to the said compromise dated 16.09.2017.8.Learned counsel for the respondent further submits thatSection 136 of the Evidence Act confers discretion upon the Court topermit parties to lead evidence only if the same is relevant. It isJhs/4/13 16 CRI WP NO. 82 OF 2026submitted that the cheques in question were issued in pursuance of acompromise arrived at on 05.09.2017, and therefore, the sale deed,correction deed, and revised maps sought to be produced are notrelevant to the present proceedings. It is thus submitted that thelearned Trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion in rejecting theapplication filed by the petitioners.9.Learned counsel for the respondent further submits thatSection 136 of the Evidence Act is analogous to Order XVIII Rule 4 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, which also provides that evidence maybe permitted only if it is found to be relevant. It is submitted that thelearned Trial Court, having found that the documents sought to beproduced are not relevant, has rightly rejected the application.Learned counsel further relies upon the judgment in Rajendra SinghChhatrasal Singh Kushwaha Vs. Jitendra Singh Rajendra SinghKushwah; 2013 (6) Mh.L. J., 802 to contend that the Court cannotpermit parties to lead irrelevant evidence or evidence not related tothe issues, as set out in the affidavit filed by way of examination-in-chief in lieu of oral evidence.10.Learned counsel for the respondent further relies upon thejudgment in Yogendra Bhagatram Sachdev vs. State of Maharashtraand another, reported in 2003 STPL 3392 (Bom), to submit that theevidence sought to be led by the defence is an attempt to improve itsJhs/5/13 16 CRI WP NO. 82 OF 2026case, and therefore, such permission to lead additional evidencecannot be granted at the appellate stage.11.In rebuttal, the petitioners have relied upon the judgment ofthe Bombay High Court in Geeta Marine Services Pvt. Ltd. andAnother vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2009 (3) BCR (Cri)633, to demonstrate the scope and relevance of Section 294 Cr.P.C.and its application in cases where the accused seeks to producedocuments and requests the Court to direct the complainant to admitor deny the same.12.Learned counsel for the petitioners has further relied upon thejudgment of this Court in Sureshbabu Dulappa Talbhandare vs. Stateof Maharashtra, reported in 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 1515, to submit thatthe procedure under Section 294 Cr.P.C. is mandatory and is requiredto be followed, and that failure to adhere to the said procedure maycause prejudice to the accused.REASONING :-13.I have perused the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 passedby the learned 11th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabadin S.C.C. No. 6253 of 2019. A perusal of the said order indicates thatthe accused had filed an application at Exh. 34 seeking permission toproduce certain documents along with a list of documents at Exh. 35.The order further reveals that the application at Exh. 34 has beenJhs/6/13 16 CRI WP NO. 82 OF 2026allowed and the production of the said documents has already beenpermitted by the learned Trial Court.14.The learned Trial Court has considered the relevancy of thedocuments sought to be produced without addressing the otherprayer made by the applicant, namely, for a direction to thecomplainant to admit or deny the said documents under Section 294Cr.P.C. The Trial Court has unnecessarily entered into the aspect ofrelevancy and thereafter rejected the prayer of the petitioners todirect the complainant to admit or deny the said documents. Thesecond prayer made by the petitioners, seeking reference of the saiddocuments under Section 294 Cr.P.C., has not been considered at all.No reasons have been assigned as to why the documents, which havealready been permitted to be brought on record by allowing Exh. 34(application) and Exh. 35 (list of documents), cannot be put to thecomplainant in exercise of powers under Section 294 Cr.P.C.15.Section 294 Cr.P.C. provides that the particulars of documentssought to be filed in Court must be included in a list, and theprosecution or the accused, as the case may be, shall be called uponto admit or deny the genuineness of each such document. The sectionlays down the procedure for determining when a document can beadmitted in evidence or when it must be proved in accordance withlaw. In essence, whenever any document is filed before a Court by theJhs/7/13 16 CRI WP NO. 82 OF 2026prosecution or the accused, it must be included in the list, and onceincluded, the other party - the defence, the accused, or theState/Prosecution shall be called upon to admit or deny itsgenuineness.16.Section 294 Cr.P.C. does not prohibit the filing of a document ata subsequent stage, either by the prosecution or by the defence. Itonly requires that any document sought to be produced on recordshall be included in the list of documents, so that the other party ismade aware of it. Once a document is included in the list, the otherparty shall be called upon to admit or deny its genuineness. It is,therefore, clear that a document may be filed even after the filing of acharge-sheet by the prosecution, or at any stage by the defence,provided it is included in the list.17.It is evident from the record that the accused have already filedan application at Exh. 34, along with a list of documents at Exh. 35,which has already been allowed by the learned Trial Court. Noreasons have been assigned by the Trial Court as to why the saiddocuments cannot be put to the complainant, calling upon him toadmit or deny their genuineness. The learned Trial Court has failed totake into consideration that, when the prosecution is called upon toadmit or deny the documents, it is not necessary for the complainantto choose either option; he may admit or deny the same. The lawJhs/8/13 16 CRI WP NO. 82 OF 2026relating to the proof of such documents would then apply dependingon whether the complainant admits or denies them. Merely callingupon the complainant to admit or deny the genuineness of suchdocuments under Section 294 Cr.P.C. would, in my opinion, not causeany prejudice. The complainant still has the opportunity to challengethe admissibility of such documents, and merely putting thedocuments to the complainant does not amount to judicialdetermination of their admissibility.18.The procedure under Section 294 Cr.P.C. was introduced toavoid unnecessary delay and remove obstructions in the speedy trial.It enables the prosecution or the accused to admit or deny thegenuineness of documents at the outset in writing. Upon admissionor indication of no dispute regarding genuineness, the Court isauthorised to dispense with formal proof. In fact, once no dispute isindicated, proof of the document becomes a mere formality.19.The Hon’ble Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in ShaikhFarid Hussainsab vs. State of Maharashtra, 83 Bom LR 278, has heldas follows:“7. Section 294 of the Code is introduced to dispense with thisavoidable waste of time and facilitate removal of suchobstruction in the speedy trial. The accused is now enabled towaive the said right and save the time. This is a new provisionhaving no corresponding provision in the repealed Code ofCriminal Procedure. It requires the prosecutor or the accused, asthe case may be, to admit or deny the genuineness of theJhs/9/13 16 CRI WP NO. 82 OF 2026document sought to be relied against him at the outset inwriting. On his admitting or indicating no dispute as to thegenuineness, the Court is authorised to dispense with its formalproof thereof. In fact after indication of no dispute as to thegenuineness, proof of documents is reduced to a sheer emptyformality. The section is obviously aimed at undoing the judicialview by legislative process.”20.In my opinion, the learned Trial Court committed an error inrejecting the application solely on the ground of relevancy of thedocuments sought to be relied upon by the petitioner/accused, on thebasis that the four cheques of Rs. 8,00,000/- each were issued afterthe parties had entered into the settlement. The production of theproposed documents had already been permitted by the learnedpredecessor of the Trial Court as per the order below Exh. 34. It is thechoice of the accused to prove his defence by leading evidence whichaccording to him is necessary.21.The aforesaid view taken by the learned Trial Court is contraryto the provisions of Section 294 Cr.P.C., which mandates that if adocument is included in the list, the prosecution or the accused, ortheir pleader, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuinenessof each such document. The word used is ‘shall’ and not ‘may’,leaving no discretion to the Trial Court to deny such a request. 22.It is well settled that whether a statutory provision ismandatory or directory depends upon several factors. The mere useof the word “shall” is not conclusive. Although “shall” generallyJhs/10/13 16 CRI WP NO. 82 OF 2026indicates a mandatory intent, the Courts, having regard to thecontext, have in certain cases interpreted it as directory. The contextin which the word “shall” appears, if considered along with theobject, purpose and scheme of Section 294 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, for which it was introduced, makes it clear that the word“shall” appearing in Section 294 indicates a mandatory intent and nota discretionary one. Section 294 has been introduced by thelegislature with a view to avoid unnecessary consumption of time intrial and to facilitate expeditious proceedings. The provision confers aright upon the accused to waive objection and thereby save time.Similarly, the prosecution is also conferred with such a right to waiveobjection and expedite the trial. 23.The said provision mandates that the prosecution or theaccused must admit or deny the genuineness of the document soughtto be relied upon against them. Upon such admission, the Court isempowered to dispense with the formal proof thereof. However, mereadmission of a document does not ipso facto determine itsevidentiary value or relevance, which can be adjudicated by the TrialCourt while deciding the case on merits. The plain and unambiguouslanguage of Section 294 Cr.P.C. clearly indicates that calling upon theprosecution or the accused to admit or deny the genuineness ofdocuments is mandatory and not discretionary. The word ‘shall’Jhs/11/13 16 CRI WP NO. 82 OF 2026denotes a mandatory obligation, whereas ‘may’ indicates permission,possibility, or discretion. This principle has been consistentlyrecognized by the Courts.24.Thus, taking into consideration that the proposed documentshave already been permitted by the Trial Court as per the ordersbelow Exh. 34 and Exh. 35 to be brought on record, there is noreason why the Trial Court should not have exercised its powersunder Section 294 Cr.P.C. to call upon the complainant to admit ordeny the genuineness of the said documents.25.In my view, therefore, the impugned order is arbitrary and isthus liable to be quashed and set aside.26.The observations made herein are prima facie in nature andare intended solely for the purpose of deciding the present writpetition. They shall not influence the Trial Court. The Trial Courtshall independently examine the relevance of the documents broughton record, without being influenced by any observations made by thisCourt.27.Hence, the following order :-O R D E RA)The writ petition is allowed.B)The impugned order dated 14.11.2025 passed below Exh. 36in S.C.C. No. 6253 of 2019 is hereby quashed and set aside.Jhs/12/13 16 CRI WP NO. 82 OF 2026C)The learned Trial Court is directed to call upon thecomplainant to admit or deny the documents in accordancewith Section 294 Cr.P.C.D)Considering that the complaint is pending since 2019, the TrialCourt shall endeavour to dispose of the same expeditiously,preferably within six months from the date of receipt of thejudgment.( MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. )Jhs/13/13