Sah vs Unknown
2022 Latest Caselaw 3762 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                        COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  C482 No. 2095 of 2022
                                  Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mrs. Sheetal Selwal, Advocate, for the applicant.

Mr. Atul Kumar Shah, Deputy A.G., with Mrs. Mamta Joshi, Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand.

In Criminal Case No. 2388 of 2021, Pratibha Sah Vs. Suhail Siddiqui, which were the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, was instituted on 17th October, 2019.

Its during the pendency of the proceedings, a non-bailable warrant was issued on 8th March, 2022, which was later on cancelled on 18th April, 2022. Its immediately thereafter, that the applicant has filed an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., thereby praying for, that the written agreement dated 27th October, 2018, which refers to the cheque may be directed to be placed on record, and the Notary Public, who has verified the said affidavit, may be summoned before the Court.

The said application has been rejected by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Nainital, by the judgment dated 4th May, 2022, which later on, stood affirmed in a Revision, being Criminal Revision No. 80 of 2022, Suhail Siddique Vs. State and another, resulting into the dismissal of the Revision by the judgment dated 5th August, 2022.

If the reason, which has been assigned by the Court, while rejecting the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., if the same is taken into consideration, the reasoning, which has been given by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, is that the so-called agreement, which has been sought to be summoned and also with regard to the production of the Counsel who had verified the contents of the said affidavit allegedly dated 27th October, 2018, no orders are required to be passed on an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., because in the statement recorded by the accused under Sections 251 and 313 of the Cr.P.C., it nowhere even refers to the said affidavit, which is being sought to be produced before the Court, as well as summoning of the Counsel, who had verified the contents of this said affidavit.

The Revisional Court has observed, that the order refusing to summon the witnesses under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., would be an interlocutory order in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as reported in 2009 (65) ACC 607 SC, Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam, where it has been held, that the order deciding the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., since being an interlocutory order, no Revision would lie. Apart from the fact, that if the merit of the application itself is taken into consideration, since the alleged agreement did not find any reference in the statement recorded by the witnesses, the impugned order cannot be faulted with in any manner, whatsoever.

Hence, the C482 Application lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) Dated 23.11.2022 Shiv