Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 25 March, 2026
2026:UHC:2155
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application U/s 482 No. 1156 of 2022
25th March, 2026
Rajeev Tyagi ..........Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others ......Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. for the State.
Mr. Devang Dobhal, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J.
Present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 17.06.2022 passed in Complaint Case No. 4099 of 2018, pending before the Court of learned 3rd Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, whereby the application moved by the applicant for taking certain documents on record for the purpose of cross-examination of the complainant witness has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the son of the complainant and the applicant had entered into a partnership deed dated 24.08.2016 for carrying on the business of providing hostel facilities to students; that, the complainant himself was a witness to the said partnership deed and had signed the same as witness no.1; that, in the year 2018, the partners mutually decided to dissolve 1 2026:UHC:2155 the partnership firm and consequently a partnership dissolution deed was executed between the applicant and the son of the complainant; that, the complainant again signed the said dissolution deed as witness no.1; that, on the same day, another agreement was executed between the applicant and the son of the complainant detailing the terms of full and final settlement of the partnership accounts, wherein the complainant also appended his signatures as a witness.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that, in terms of the agreement executed between the parties, the outstanding dues were mutually settled by payment of cash in lieu of the cheques; that, subsequently, another settlement deed/agreement was executed between the parties recording that all liabilities and dues between them had been fully and finally settled. It is further contended that during the subsistence of the partnership, a joint bank account was opened in the name of the applicant and the son of the complainant in terms of the partnership deed; that, some blank signed cheques of the applicant were lying with the son of the complainant. According to the applicant, one of such cheques was misused by the complainant, who thereafter filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the applicant before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. It is further alleged that the cheque in question bears the signatures not only of the applicant but also of the then partner, i.e., the son of 2 2026:UHC:2155 respondent no.2.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was entertained and the applicant was summoned vide order dated 06.02.2019; that, the complainant thereafter filed his affidavit of examination-in-chief as PW-1 and was partly cross-examined; that, during the course of such cross-examination, the applicant moved an application seeking permission to place certain documents on record for the purpose of confronting and contradicting the complainant witness with respect to the transactions relating to the partnership and settlement between the parties.
5. He would further submit that along with the said application, the applicant sought to place on record the partnership deed, partnership dissolution deed, agreement, acknowledgment receipts, settlement deed, and copies of cheques. However, the learned trial court rejected the said application vide the impugned order dated 17.06.2022, holding that under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, only those documents which are executed by the witness himself can be used for the purpose of contradiction.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the reasoning adopted by the learned trial court is legally unsustainable. It is argued that the documents sought to be produced cannot be said to be irrelevant to the matter in issue; that, unless the documents are taken on record, the Court cannot determine whether they constitute previous 3 2026:UHC:2155 statements of the witness or are relevant for the purpose of contradiction. It is further contended that during his examination, the complainant has expressed lack of recollection regarding various documents executed in connection with the partnership business, though he had signed those documents as a witness. Therefore, the documents sought to be produced are essential for the purpose of effective cross-examination of the complainant; that, denial of such opportunity would seriously prejudice the defence of the applicant and may lead to miscarriage of justice.
7. Learned counsel further submits that under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a statutory presumption arises in favour of the holder of the cheque; however, such presumption is rebuttable and the accused is entitled to rebut the same by leading evidence or by way of cross- examination of the complainant; that, cross- examination constitutes an important safeguard for the accused and denial of the opportunity to effectively cross-examine the complainant is contrary to the principles of fair trial.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 submits that since the complainant was not the executant of the documents sought to be produced by the applicant, the learned trial court has rightly rejected the application.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
10. It would be appropriate to refer to Section 4 2026:UHC:2155 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, which provides for cross-examination as to previous statements in writing. The provision permits a witness to be cross- examined with reference to any previous statement made by him in writing or reduced into writing and relevant to the matters in question.
11. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that, for the purpose of contradiction, it is not necessary that the document must have been executed by the witness himself. What is important is whether the document contains statements or assertions that can be attributed to the witness, or whether the witness was involved in, or has acknowledged, the contents of the document in a manner that is relevant to the issue in question.
12. In the present case, the applicant seeks to place on record documents such as the partnership deed, dissolution deed, agreements and settlement documents, which allegedly bear the signatures of the complainant as a witness. These documents prima facie appear to be relevant for the purpose of testing the veracity of the statements made by the complainant during his examination.
13. The learned trial court, while rejecting the application, appears to have proceeded on the assumption that only those documents which have been executed by the witness himself can be used for the purpose of contradiction under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. This interpretation is unduly narrow and does not reflect the true object of the provision. The purpose of Section 145 of the Evidence Act is to 5 2026:UHC:2155 allow a party to effectively cross-examine a witness by confronting him with previous statements or materials relevant to the matter in issue. Limiting its application only to documents executed by the witness himself defeats this purpose and unnecessarily restricts the right of effective cross- examination.
14. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial court has committed an error of law in rejecting the application of the applicant and thereby restricting the scope of cross-examination of the complainant.
15. Consequently, the impugned order dated 17.06.2022 passed by the learned trial court is set aside. The present C-482 application is allowed. The learned trial court is directed to take on record the list of documents filed along with the application under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act and permit the applicant to confront the complainant witness with those documents during cross- examination in accordance with law.
16. Since the complaint case pertains to the year 2018, the learned trial court is requested to make every endeavour to expeditiously conclude the proceedings in accordance with law.
17. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
MA Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, (Alok Mahra, J.) ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, MTA 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46 25.03.2026 f244f3e584af1449e430ef90 0bf09a6d67ebbd64267132 9b, postalCode=263001, Mamta st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1 RANI d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8 b66dd26690a191648ab5d8 dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.03.31 10:39:25 +05'30' 6