Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hemant Saaran vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 July, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1928/2021
Hemant Saaran S/o Sh. Lehri Ram Ji, Aged About 44 Years, By
Caste Bishnoi, R/o Gachhipura Railway Dusri Fhatak Ke Pass,
Kalyanpura Road, Village Post Gachhipura, District Nagour (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2. Pappu Ram S/o Sh. Bhaga Ram, By Caste Prajapat, Prop.
Hariom Art Palace, 6/118, K.k. Colony, Sangariya Road,
Basni First Phase, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Sachin Acharya, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Rahul Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma PP
Mr. Hasti Mal Saraswat
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 19/07/2022
Pronounced on 27/07/2022
1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has
been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this petition
may kindly be allowed and impugned order dated
06.03.2021 passed by the learned Special Metropolitan
Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No.4, Jodhpur Metro in Cri.
Regular Case No.1038/2016 (Pappuram vs. Hemant
Saaran) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the
application dated 24.01.2020 filed by the petitioner for
summoning the complete books of accounts may kindly be
allowed."
2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submitted that a
complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 was filed by the complainant (owner of 'Hariom Art Palace')
before the learned court below, alleging therein that the accused-
petitioner (owner of 'Art Impex'), in the year 2005, purchased
(Downloaded on 30/07/2022 at 08:31:14 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-1928/2021]
certain items from the complainant and issued cheques in
connection therewith in favour of the complainant; as per the
complainant, however, the said cheques, upon being presented in
the Bank, the same were dishonoured with remark of
"insufficiency of funds" in the bank account of the accused-
petitioner.
2.1 Learned counsel further submitted that in his cross-
examination, he used to make regular entries in the books of
accounts of Hariom Art Palace and the income tax returns are also
regularly being filed by him; in respect of the items sold on credit,
he used to maintain a separate diary, and that, the bank account
was in the name the complainant's Firm 'Hariom Art Palace'.
2.2 Learned counsel also submitted that for the purpose of the
effective adjudication of the case before the learned court below,
the accused-petitioner moved an application under Section 91
Cr.P.C. for summoning the aforementioned books of accounts of
the complainant's Firm and the income tax returns so filed, as the
moot issue before the learned court below was as to for what
purpose the disputed cheques were issued - whether towards any
loan or liability or not. However, the learned court below without
considering the said vital aspect of the case, rejected the
application of the accused-petitioner, vide the impugned order
dated 06.03.2021, which runs contrary to law, particularly, the
provisions of Section 91 Cr.P.C. itself.
3. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as
learned counsel for the respondent-complainant opposed the
aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the accused-petitioner,
while supporting the impugned order passed by the learned court
below.
(Downloaded on 30/07/2022 at 08:31:14 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-1928/2021]
3.1 Learned counsel submitted that the accused-petitioner was
under a legal obligation to discharge his complete liability towards
purchase of items from the complainant, but the accused-
petitioner clearly failed to discharge such liability.
3.2 Learned counsel further submitted that the cheques issued
by the accused-petitioner towards purchase of items were
dishonoured by the bank on count of "insufficiency of funds" in the
bank account of the accused-petitioner; such repeated
dishonouring of the cheques clearly speaks of the conduct and
intention of the accused-petitioner, to escape the liability in
question.
3.3 Learned counsel also submitted that the complainant,
through his Advocate, also served a notice to the petitioner
requiring him to discharge his legal obligations by paying the
complete outstanding amount to the complainant, but despite
service of such notice, neither the accused-petitioner paid any
amount, nor had he gave any reply or response to the said notice;
thus, the complaint in question was submitted by the complainant
before the learned court below, praying for the reliefs to which the
complainant is entitled for.
3.4 Learned counsel further submitted that the application under
Section 91 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the accused-petitioner with
the sole motive of prolonging the litigation, as the documents, as
sought to be summoned by the accused-petitioner, were not at all
relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the case before the
learned court below; thus, the learned court below was perfectly
justified in rejecting the said application vide the impugned order.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as
perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that
(Downloaded on 30/07/2022 at 08:31:15 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-1928/2021]
the learned court below was right in holding that the documents in
question were not relevant for the purpose of determining the
moot question (whether the disputed cheques were issued
towards any loan or liability or not), as the accused-petitioner was
at complete liberty to prove the same by leading the necessary
evidence.
5. The learned court below was also right in observing that the
accused-petitioner clearly failed to make any specific averment in
the application, as to how the documents in question sought to be
summoned were relevant for the purpose of effective and early
adjudication of the case, more particularly, when it was not
mentioned in the application, that the books of account and the
income tax returns, of which year, were to be summoned.
6. Thus, the learned court below has rightly held that in
absence of any specific averment, as to the aforesaid aspect, the
documents in question are not required to be summoned for
making the necessary adjudication, thereby pointing towards the
failure on the part of the accused-petitioner in furnishing the
necessary and specific particulars, regarding the documents in
question, sought to be summoned.
7. In view of the above, this Court does not find any legal
infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned court below,
so as to warrant any interference therein.
8. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending
applications stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
192-SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
