Chandrakant Govindrao Udakhe vs Pradeep Namdeorao Kalaskar
2025 Latest Caselaw 4022 Bom

Bombay High Court

Chandrakant Govindrao Udakhe vs Pradeep Namdeorao Kalaskar on 17 June, 2025

2025:BHC-NAG:5565




              Judgment

                                                                 411 wp858.24



                                           1

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                         NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                     CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.858 OF 2024

              Chandrakant Govindrao Udakhe,
              aged about 65 years, occupation: business,
              r/o near New Shrikrushna Mandir, Mata
              Khidki, Amravati, taluka
              and district Amravati.            ..... Petitioner.

                                   :: V E R S U S ::

              Pradeep Namdeorao Kalaskar,
              aged about 48 year, occupation: business,
              r/o plot No.15, Purushottam Nagar,
              Akoli Road, Amravati, taluka and district
              Amravati.                       ..... Respondent.

              Shri S.S.Alaspurkar, Counsel for the Petitioner.
              Shri S.B.Gandhe, Counsel for the Respondent.

              CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
              CLOSED ON : 12/06/2025
              PRONOUNCED ON : 17/06/2025

              JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel Shri S.S.Alaspurkar for the

petitioner and learned counsel Shri S.B.Gandhe for the

.....2/-

Judgment

411 wp858.24

respondent. Rule. Heard finally by consent of learned

counsel appearing for parties.

2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged order

dated 13.3.2024 passed below Exh.84 by learned JMFC,

Court No.2, Amravati and sought direction to exhibit

documents filed on record.

3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the petition are

as under:

The respondent and the petitioner are well

acquainted with each other. On 4.12.2012, the petitioner

sold one house to the respondent consisting of first floor

with three rooms situated at Amravati for consideration

of Rs.37,61,000/-. As the consideration amount was not

paid by the respondent, the petitioner has demanded the

amount on several occasions. The respondent convinced

the petitioner that he would obtain loan from bank and

.....3/-

Judgment

411 wp858.24

pay the total consideration amount. He processed the

loan application with the Bank of Baroda, Shyam Square,

Amravati and the petitioner stood as guarantor to the

loan amount. The respondent informed that the loan was

not sanctioned in his favour and, therefore, he applied

with the Dharampeth Mahila Multistate Cooperative

Society Limited for the loan and obtained his signatures

as surety. Thereafter, he informed that the loan was

sanctioned. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was arrested

by the police and it revealed to the petitioner that the

respondent committed fraud on the basis of forged

documents and criminal case is registered vide Crime

No.111/16 under Sections 420, 467, and 468 read with

34 of the IPC. After releasing the petitioner on bail, on

demand of the consideration amount, the respondent

issued Cheque bearing No.001477 dated 18.7.2016 of

Rs.30.00 lacs drawn on the State of Hyderabad, Branch at

.....4/-

Judgment

411 wp858.24

Badnera Road, Amravati. The said cheque was deposited,

but the same was returned "unpaid" with an endorsement

"account closed" and, therefore, the petitioner issued

Notice. After receipt of the Notice, the respondent has

not paid the amount. The petitioner was constrained to

file complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act bearing No.4441/2016. In the said

complaint, the petitioner as well as the respondent both

have adduced evidence. After recording of the statement

of the respondent under section 313(1)(b) of the CrPC,

the petitioner filed an application seeking permission to

produce documents on record and the same was allowed

by passing order below Exh.68 along with the list of

documents Exh.69. The documents were certified copies

of Exh.1 of Regular Civil Suit No.48/2019, certified copy

of chargesheet filed in RCC No.577/2018, and certified

copy of chargesheet filed in RCC No.701/2018.

.....5/-

Judgment

411 wp858.24

4. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application

below Exh.84 for exhibiting the said documents.

However, learned Judge of the trial court has rejected the

said application. The petitioner has also filed another

application below Exh.87 seeking permission to place on

record documents i.e. dated 13.11.2013 and bank return

memo dated 2.12.2012 in respect of another transaction

to show modus operandi of the respondent. However,

the said application is rejected by learned Judge of the

trial court observing that though these documents

wherein possession of the complainant since filing of the

complaint the same were not brought on record and also

observed that the said documents are contrary to the

document sale deed which shows that the petitioner has

received entire consideration amount in cash.

.....6/-

Judgment

411 wp858.24

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

documents filed in view of order below Exh.68 are public

documents. These documents are certified copies either

of the court proceedings or the criminal complaints filed

against the respondent. Being the said documents

maintained during course of discharging official duties,

being public documents, require to be exhibited directly.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

submitted that mere exhibition of documents is not

sufficient. The petitioner has to adduce evidence in

support of the contentions.

7. After hearing both the sides and perusing of the

relevant material, it reveals that vide Exh.68, the

petitioner has filed an application for placing on record

certified copy of the plaint of civil suit which is filed

against the respondent. Thus, it is certified copies

.....7/-

Judgment

411 wp858.24

obtained from the court as to the judicial proceeding filed

against the present applicant. In view of Section 74 of the

Indian Evidence Act, definition of public documents reads

as under:

"74. Public documents. The following documents are public documents :-

(1) Documents forming the acts or records of the acts -

(i) of the sovereign authority;

(ii) of official bodies and tribunals; and

(iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, [of any part of India or of the Commonwealth] [The original words "whether of British India, or of any other part of Her Majesty's dominions" have successively been amended by A.O. 1948 and A.O. 1950 to read as above.], or of a foreign country;

.....8/-

Judgment

411 wp858.24

(2) public records kept [in any State] [Substituted by A.O. 1950, for "in any Province".] of private documents".

8. Considering Sections 74 of the Indian Evidence

Act, presumption under Section 79 attracts. The certified

copies of the FIRs are filed on record which are public

documents. There is a discretion between the record of

the court and record of the acts of the court. It is only

record of the acts of the court which is public document.

The FIR is a document prepared while discharging official

duty.

9. Thus, being the above said documents public

documents, the same are required to be exhibited and,

therefore, the order rejecting the application for

exhibition of documents requires to be set aside. These

documents ought to have been admitted in the evidence.

.....9/-

Judgment

411 wp858.24

In view of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, the

documents mentioned in the Section are public

documents. From reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is

manifestly clear that a public document is one made by

the public officer for the purposes of public making use of

it and being able to refer to it. The documents i.e.

certified copy of the plaint filed in the court and the

certified copies of the FIRs recorded by the police officer

while discharging official duty are public documents.

10. As far as the application vide Exh.87 is concerned,

admittedly, these documents are filed at the conclusion of

the trial i.e. at a belated stage though the petitioner was

in possession of the said documents. The petitioner has

not assigned any reasons for non-production of the said

documents though he was in possession and no

explanation is put forth in support of the same and,

.....10/-

Judgment

411 wp858.24

therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed partly.

In view of that, I proceed to pass following order:

ORDER

(1) The Criminal Writ Petition is partly allowed.

(2) The order dated 13.3.2024 passed below Exh.84 by

learned JMFC, Court No.2, Amravati is quashed and set

aside and learned JMFC is directed to consider the

provisions of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act to

admit the evidence.

(3) The prayer of the petitioner for setting aside the order

below Exh.87 is hereby rejected.

Petition stands disposed of.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) !! BrWankhede !!

Signed by: Mr. B. R. Wankhede Designation: PS To Honourable Judge ...../- Date: 18/06/2025 11:49:10