Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Panna Lal vs State And Anr on 4 August, 2022

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1661/2020

Panna Lal S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Dhakar, Aged About 64 Years, Bijoliya, District Bhilwara.

----Petitioner Versus Roop Lal S/o Shri Mangi Lal, Bijoliya, Tehsil Bijoliya, District Bhilwara.

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1157/2017 Panna Lal S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Dhakar, R/o Bijoliya, Distt. Bhilwara.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan

2. Yogesh Kumar S/o Shri Naveen Kumar Jain, R/o Bijoliya, Distt.

Bhilwara.

----Respondents S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3846/2017 Panna Lal S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Dhakar, Bijoliya, District Bhilwara.

                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.                                        State Of Rajasthan
2.                                        Brijesh        Kumar       S/o    Shri
                                          Jagdishchandra Tailor, Bijoliya,
                                          District Bhilwara.
                                                                ----Respondents

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 82/2018 Panna Lal S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Dhakar, Resident Of Bijoliya, District Bhilwara

----Petitioner Versus

(2 of 9) [CRLMP-1661/2020]

1. State Of Rajasthan

2. Yogesh Kumar S/o Shri Naveen Kumar Jain, Resident Of Bijoliya, District Bhilwara

----Respondents S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 582/2018 Panna Lal S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, By Caste Dhakar, R/o Bijoliya, Tehsil Bijoliya, District Bhilwara Rajasthan

----Petitioner Versus Rajendra Singh S/o Shri Roop Singh, By Caste Tanwar Rawana Rajput, R/o Bijoliya, Tehsil Bijoliya, District Bhilwara Raj.

----Respondent S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3470/2018 Panna Lal S/o Sh. Bhanwar Lal Dhakar, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Bijoliya, Dist. Bhilwara.

----Petitioner Versus Rajendra Singh S/o Sh. Roop Singh, R/o Bijoliya, Dist. Bhilwara.

----Respondent S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3471/2018 Panna Lal S/o Sh. Bhanwar Lal Dhakar, Aged About 62 Years, Bijoliya , Distt. Bhilwara

----Petitioner Versus Roop Lal S/o Sh. Mangi Lal, Bijoliya , Tehsil Bijoliya , Distt. Bhilwara

----Respondent S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1663/2020 Panna Lal S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Dhakar, Aged About 64 Years, Bijoliya, District Bhilwara.

----Petitioner Versus Rajendra Singh Tanwar S/o Shri Roop Singh, Bijoliya, District Bhilwara.

                                                                ----Respondent



                                      (3 of 9)                   [CRLMP-1661/2020]



For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Sudhir Saruparia
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Arun Kumar, PP
                               Mr. T.R.S. Sodha

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 03/08/2022 Pronounced on 04/08/2022

In S.B. Criminal Misc. Petitions No.1661/2020, 582/2018, 3470/2018, 3471/2018 and 1663/2020:

1. These criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have

been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

CRLMP No. 1661/2020:

"Hence, it is prayed that the Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and order dated 20.02.2020 quashed and application filed by petitioner under section 91 of Cr.P.C. may kindly be ordered to be allowed."

CRLMP No. 582/2018:

"It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that this miscellaneous petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed and the orders impugned passed by the courts below may be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. may kindly be ordered to be allowed."

CRLMP No.3470/2018:

"Hence, it is prayed that the Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and order dated 27.09.2018 quashed and application filed by petitioner under section 91 Cr.P.C. may kindly be ordered to be allowed."

CRLMP NO.3471/2018:

"Hence, it is prayed that the Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and order dated 27.09.2018 quashed and

(4 of 9) [CRLMP-1661/2020]

application filed by petitioner under section 91 Cr.P.C. may kindly be ordered to be allowed."

CRLMP NO.1663/2020:

"Hence, it is prayed that the Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and order dated 20.02.2020 quashed and application filed by petitioner under section 91 of Cr.P.C. may kindly be ordered to be allowed."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this

Court towards the fact that the complainant-private respondent

herein had failed to bring on record the Income Tax documents,

which would have enabled the learned court below to adjudicate

as to whether the demand raised against the cheque in question

was justified or not.

2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the

invocation of Section 91 Cr.P.C. was justified in the present case,

and thus, ought not to have been refused by the learned trial

court, merely because there was an admission on the part of the

petitioner to the signatures on the cheque, which was sufficient to

bring home the point of preponderance of probabilities and

presumption in favour of holder of the cheque.

2.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the

income tax return is must before the trial proceeds.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent

vehemently opposed the aforementioned proposition on the

ground that the same cannot be permitted to be brought in, as the

petitioner himself has accepted his signatures on the cheque, and

thus, no more proof was required so as to justify bringing of the

income tax documents on record.

(5 of 9) [CRLMP-1661/2020]

3.1 Learned counsel for the respondent referred to an earlier

judgment of this Court passed in Rajendra Singh Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition

No.1592/2017, decided, alongwith connected petitions, on

06.09.2017), in which this Court has already held that in case the

document is not brought on record, an adverse presumption can

be drawn by the court at the appropriate stage, as per Section

114 of the Indian Evidence Act, and thus, the petitioner would be

entitled for an adverse inference at the appropriate stage.

4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the requirement of the income tax documents was on count

of the fact that although the petitioner had admitted the

signatures, but the financial transactions between the parties were

to be completely proved, and unless they were so proved, the

proper adjudication and defence of the petitioner both would

suffer.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as

perusing the record of the case, this Court of the firm opinion that

the private respondent is free to bring on record the income tax

documents at the instance of the petitioner, but in case he refuses

to do the same, an adverse inference can be drawn at the

appropriate stage by the learned trial court, which has already

been held by this Court in the case of Rajendra Singh (supra).

Thus, no cause of any interference by this Court is made out in

the present petitions.

6. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All

pending applications stand disposed of.

(6 of 9) [CRLMP-1661/2020]

In S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1157/2017 :

1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has

been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"Hence, it is prayed that the Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and order dated 27.03.2017 quashed and set aside upto the extend of application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. and one opportunity for cross-examination to complainant-respondent no.2 be given."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to

being won over, the cross examination could not happen properly,

and therefore, one more opportunity ought to be given to call the

witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C., so that the lacuna can be filled.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the

private respondent, however, opposed the petition.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as

perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that

the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is perfectly

justified, as in the present case, any exercise under Section 311

Cr.P.C. is not justified, as the cross examination was done properly

by the concerned counsel, and by merely making allegations

against the counsel, the party cannot be permitted to reopen the

cross-examination, once more, by recalling the witnesses. Thus,

no cause for making any interference by this Court is made out.

5. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.

In S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3846/2017 :

1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has

been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

(7 of 9) [CRLMP-1661/2020]

"Hence, it is prayed that the Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and order dated 05.10.2017 quashed and set aside and pass appropriate order for sending the disputed cheque to FSL and in cross-examination, clerical mistake may kindly be rectified."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

criminal complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act by the private respondent against the present

petitioner regarding dishonouring of a cheque, and the present

proceedings culminated out of it.

3. The limited submission made by learned counsel for the

petitioner is that the statement of PW-1 Brijesh was rendered in

the year 2017, in which in the last line, the statement included the

names of Roop Lal and Pannalal, wheras instead of Pannalal, the

name of Rajendra should have been there, which is merely a

clerical error, and ought to be corrected at this stage.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent, however opposes any

correction at this belated stage, as the statement in question itself

was rendered in the year 2017.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as

perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that

ordinarily, any correction at the belated stage, may adversely

impact or delay the proceedings, but looking into the peculiar facts

circumstances of the case and the stage thereof, if the name of

Pannalal is substituted by the name of Rajendra, in the last line of

the deposition made as PW-1 Brijesh, the same would serve the

interest of justice, more particularly, when such correction would

not result into any harm to either of the parties.

(8 of 9) [CRLMP-1661/2020]

6. In view of the above, the clerical error in question is

removed and the present petition is disposed of, while directing

that in the last line of the deposition made by PW-1 Brijesh in the

year 2017, the name of "Pannalal" shall stand substituted, and

shall be read as "Rajendra". All pending applications also stand

disposed of.

In S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 82/2018 :

1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has

been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"Hence, it is prayed that the Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and order dated 15.12.2017 quashed and set aside and also pass appropriate order to send the disputed cheque and other document be sent for FSL. Any other relief which court may think fit be granted in favor of the petitioner."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order

whereby application under section 340 Cr.P.C. has been rejected

by the learned trial court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

overwriting in the two certified copies of the notice sent by the

respondent clearly point out that it is a case where the record has

been tampered with by the respondent.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the

private respondent however, opposed the petition.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as

perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that though there

is an overwriting in the two documents, which are the copies of