The single judge bench of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi of the Punjab and Haryana High court in the case of Amit Sukhija vs Pritpal Singh held that at the stage of deciding this application under Section 91 Cr.P.C., the Court could not prejudge the evidentiary value of defense evidence sought to be produced and dismiss the application.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner issued the legal notice under section138 of the negotiable instrument act. It was clearly stated in the notice that the respondent issued a cheque which was presented for encashment in his account, but the same was returned with the remarks “Funds Insufficient”. Thereafter it was stated in the reply that the petitioner had not dealt with Pratap Singh, who is not known to him and the cheque appears to be forged. After that, the complaint was filed by the respondent under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. After that, the petitioner filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. to direct the Mobile Telecommunication Companies to produce the call details.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that if the call details are produced then, it would be in a better position to establish the de facto complainant and it was also submitted that not every application under section 91 crpc is done to delay proceedings. The counsel further relied upon the judgment titled T. Nagappa Versus Y.R. Muralidhar.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the main purpose of filing the application is to delay the proceedings and the complainant was in contact with the defacto complainant even then it was not sufficient to prove that the defacto complainant was in fact pursuing the present complaint through Pritpal Singh as it is quite possible that they enjoyed friendly relations.
COURT'S OBSERVATION
The hon'ble court relied upon the judgment titled T. Nagappa Versus Y.R. Muralidhar. The court held that it cannot be said that the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. has been moved only to delay proceedings. If the production of the documents/call detail records is permitted as per the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C., the effect of such documents/call detail records would undoubtedly be a matter of adjudication during the trial. The Trail Court would decide as to the evidentiary value of any of the said documents. At this stage, it cannot be said that the production of the said documents is completely irrelevant. Therefore, it has rightly been contended by the petitioner that at the stage of deciding this application under Section 91 Cr.P.C., the Court could not prejudge the evidentiary value of defense evidence sought to be produced and dismiss the application. Furthermore, the decision of the learned judicial magistrate quashed and was the petitioner/accused must be given an opportunity to lead his defense in the manner that he thinks fit.
CASE NAME- Amit Sukhija vs Pritpal Singh
DATED- CRM-M-10937-2020
CORUM- Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi
CITATION- 24.08.2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
