Parveen Sharma vs. Aditya Verma

Facts

The petitioner, Parveen Sharma, filed a criminal complaint against Aditya Verma. During the pendency of the case, the petitioner filed an application under Section 348 of the BNSS to examine a clerk from the GST Department to produce records of M/s Verma Exports and a clerk from PNB Bank to produce the complainant's bank account statement. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, partly allowed the application, permitting the examination of the PNB clerk but disallowing the examination of the GST clerk. The petitioner sought to prove regular business transactions between the parties, arguing this was necessary to establish the respondent's liability for which a cheque was issued. The petitioner is challenging the Magistrate's order dated 07.11.2025.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order of the learned Judicial Magistrate does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The Court reasoned that the power under Section 348 of BNSS (analogous to Section 311 CrPC) is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously to prevent a failure of justice, not arbitrarily. The Court noted that the petitioner did not specify the purpose for examining the GST witness in the application. Furthermore, the Court observed that the impugned complaint alleged liability solely in respect of a friendly loan and made no reference to business transactions as the basis for the dishonoured cheque. Therefore, summoning the GST clerk was not considered essential for a just decision in this specific case. The Court relied on precedents like Manju Devi v State of Rajasthan and Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v Central Bureau of Investigation, emphasizing that such powers should be invoked only to meet the ends of justice and with great caution.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Judicial Magistrate erred in partly allowing the application under Section 348 of BNSS by disallowing the examination of the concerned clerk from the GST Department, thereby causing a failure of justice? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that examining the GST clerk was necessary to prove regular business transactions between the petitioner and the respondent, which would establish the respondent's liability towards the petitioner, and that the dishonoured cheque was issued to discharge this liability. The petitioner contended that the witness sought was essential for the just and proper adjudication of the case. Revenue/State's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent or the State. However, the Court's reasoning implies that the petitioner failed to specify the purpose for examining the GST witness and that the impugned complaint did not refer to business transactions as the basis for the dishonoured cheque, but rather a friendly loan.