Criminal Misc. No. M-13446 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-13446 of 2009
Date of decision: May 15, 2009
M/s Goyal Cloth House & another -Petitioners
Versus
Amrit Lal -Respondent
Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta
Present: Mr. Rajan Bansal, Advocate, for
the petitioner.
Rajan Gupta, J.(Oral)
This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing
of order dated 5.5.2009,Annexure P1, whereby application of the
complainant to produce certified copies of documents by way of additional
evidence has been allowed by the trial Court.
Brief facts of the case are that respondent/complainant lodged a
complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the
petitioner due to dishonour of a cheque for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The
petitioners took up the defence that in fact the cheque book was lost by
them and a DDR in this regard was registered with the police station. Thus,
the cheque in question was never issued by them.
The complainant led evidence before the Court and closed it on
30-9-2008. Thereafter on 25.4.2009, an application was moved by him to
produce certain documents by way of additional evidence, the details
whereof are as under: –
Criminal Misc. No. M-13446 of 2009 2
A) A certified copy of the complaint titled as Balwinder
Singh Vs. Vimal Kumar, File No. 586 of 8.5.2007, RT
No. 201 dated 13.10.2008, decided on 16.4.2009 by Sh.
Balwinder Singh, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda.
B) Certified copy of order dated 16.4.2009
regarding dismissal of the complaint as withdrawn;
C) Certified copy of order dated 14.3.2009
regarding payment of Rs.20,000/- by accused Vimal
Kumar to Balwinder Singh;
D) Certified copy of statement of Balwinder Singh
regarding receipt of amount of Rs.20,000/- as part
payment from accused Vimal Kumar;
E) Certified copy of statement of Balwinder Singh
regarding receipt of amount of Rs.20,000/- from accused
Vimal Kumar and to withdraw the complaint;
F) Certified copy of statement of accused Vimal
Kumar dated 5-12-2008 regarding compromise and to
pay Rs.40,000/- in compromise to complainant upto
4.2.2009;
G) Certified copy of cheque No. 232352 dated
2.4.2007 for Rs.1,00,000/- issued by Vimal Kumar in
favour of Balwinder Singh, drawn on State Bank of
Patiala, The Mall, Bathinda;
H) Certified copy of cheque returning Memo
dated 4.4.2007 with remarks “Account Closed”.
The trial Court after considering the entire issue allowed the
application on the ground that it had power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to
allow additional evidence to be adduced before it, as also the fact that no
prejudice shall be caused to the accused if the said documents are taken on
record.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have given careful
thought to the facts of the case.
Criminal Misc. No. M-13446 of 2009 3
Counsel for the petitioners has mainly contended that by
allowing the complainant to produce the documents in question by way of
additional evidence, the trial Court has committed a grave error in law.
According to him, the said documents are not at all relevant for the purpose
of decision of the case and as such the impugned order is unsustainable.
It appears that the trial Court allowed the documents to be
produced by way of additional evidence, as no prejudice would be caused to
the accused petitioners thereby. Moreover, the complainant wanted to
produce some evidence to prove that the defence taken by the accused that
the cheque book had been lost, was false. Counsel for the petitioners has
not been able to show any legal infirmity with the impugned order. His plea
that the documents, which have been allowed to be taken on record are not
at all relevant, rather shows that no prejudice is likely to be caused to the
accused-petitioners if the same are considered in evidence.
In view of the above, I find no ground for interference in
exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the impugned
order dated 5-5-2009. The petition is hereby dismissed.
[Rajan Gupta]
Judge
May 15, 2009.
‘ask’