Chattisgarh High Court
Saurabh Agrawal vs Indusind Bank Limited on 8 August, 2022
Page 1 of 3
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
W.P.(227) No. 61 of 2022
Saurabh Agrawal S/o Shri Suresh Agrawal, Aged About 31 Years R/o
Ward No. 02,near Bavali Kuaa, Tehsil And District Raigarh
Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant
Versus
Indusind Bank Limited Branch Raigarh (C.G.), Through Its Branch
Manager & Power Of Attorney Holder, Arjun Singh Chouhan S/o. Shri
Ashok Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o. IndusInd Bank Limited,
Office Shop No. 53-54, First Floor, Krishna Complex, Infront Of Ganga
Nurisng Home, Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For Applicant : Shri Surfaraj Khan, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant : Shri Ashish Surana and Shri Chetan Singh
Chauhan, Advocates.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
08.08.2022
Heard.
1) This petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order
dated 16.12.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Raigarh, District Raigarh in Complaint Case No.88 of
2015, parties being IndusInd Bank Limited vs. Saurabh Agrawal.
2) The complaint case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act is pending before the trial Court which was filed
by the respondent - IndusInd Bank Limited on the ground that
cheque No. 996295 was issued for discharge of liability
amounting Rs.5,14,234/- but the same was dishonoured due to
insufficient funds. Notice was served upon the applicant/
petitioner and thereafter, complaint case was filed.
3) Earlier an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. was moved
before the learned trial Court and the same was rejected vide
order dated 6.1.2020 on the ground that the documents which
were called by the applicant may be produced at subsequent
stage. The order was challenged before this Court by filing W.P.
(227) No.228 of 2020 and the same was dismissed vide order
dated 4.2.2021 holding that the trial has not begun and as per
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.M.T.C. Ltd
and Another vs. MEDCHL Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd.
and Another, reported in (2002) 1 SCC 234, the authorization
can be rectified even at the subsequent stage, therefore, the
objection raised by the petitioner's side on this point was not
made at the proper stage.
The trial has begun in the complaint case, the case was
fixed for evidence of complainant before the learned trial Court
on 23.12.2021 and thereafter, the petitioner again moved an
application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. for production and
supply of the documents regarding loan agreement, loan
sanction and loan account statement on 5.3.2021. The said
application was rejected by the learned trial Court vide order
dated 16.12.2021.
4) Against the order passed by the learned trial Court dated
16.12.2021, this petition has been filed.
5) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial has
begun, evidence stage has come and it is the correct stage
where the necessary documents can be called or produced
before the learned trial Court with intend to defend the case in
proper manner and without those documents, the complaint case
is not maintainable.
6) Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the contentions of
counsel for the petitioner and submits that the earlier application
under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. was dismissed by learned trial
Court and on same set of facts, again application has been
moved and again it has been dismissed. Earlier, W.P.(227)
No.228 of 2020 was dismissed by this Court, therefore, this
petition is not maintainable on same set of facts and grounds.
Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the
judgment of Supreme Court in the case of TRL Krosaki
Refractories Ltd. vs. SMS Asia Private Limited and Another,
reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 217 and referred the
paragraph 21 where it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that
there is any serious dispute with regard to the person
prosecuting the complaint not being authorized or if it is to be
demonstrated that the person who filed the complaint has no
knowledge of the transaction and, as such that person could not
have instituted and prosecuted the complaint, it would be open
for the accused to dispute the position and establish the same
during the course of the trial.
7) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
8) The judgment which has been cited by learned counsel for the
respondent in the case of TRL Krosaki Refractories Limited
vs. SMS Asia Private Limited and Another (supra) is against
the respondent as it clearly says that it would be open for the
accused to dispute the position and establish the same during
the course of the trial. The trial has begun, the case is fixed for
evidence and as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court the
petitioner may revive his application at the proper stage. The
earlier application moved under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. and
consequent W.P.(227) were dismissed on the ground that at that
time, the trial was not begun. In my opinion, the proper stage
has come to move an application and more particularly, the
application if allowed will not effect the merits of the case of the
respondent, therefore, this petition is allowed. The order passed
by the learned trial Court is set aside and the learned trial Court
is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner filed
under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. afresh after affording opportunity
to opposite party.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Nimmi
