Sanjay vs. Ceramic Mall A Partnership Firm Through Partner Mukesh

Held

The Court held that the relevance of the agreement dated 28/05/2009 between the complainant and his wife for the adjudication of the case under Section 138 of the NI Act was not explained by the petitioner. Regarding the tax-related documents, the Court found that the application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. was vague as it did not specify the period for which VAT and Income Tax Returns were required. Consequently, the Court found no illegality in the order passed by the Court below based on such vague pleadings. The petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. was dismissed. The ratio decidendi is that applications for requisitioning documents under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. must be specific and clearly demonstrate the relevance of the documents to the case, especially in the context of Section 138 of the NI Act.

Facts

The petitioner, Sanjay, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to set aside an order dated 13/10/2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain. This order dismissed an interim application filed under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. in a complaint case (No. 36/2018) filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The application sought requisition of an agreement dated 28/05/2009 between the complainant/respondent and his wife, and also documents relating to Income Tax Returns and VAT for the petitioner's defence. The Magistrate dismissed the application, stating that the complainant needs to establish a legally enforceable debt, that the accused can file applications at the defence stage, and that VAT, Income Tax Return, or GST documents are not relevant for adjudication.

Key Issues

1. Whether the agreement dated 28/05/2009 between the complainant and his wife is relevant for the adjudication of the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881? 2. Whether the application for requisitioning VAT and Income Tax Returns was sufficiently specific to warrant production of documents under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C.? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the documents sought, including the agreement and tax-related documents, are necessary for adducing evidence and confronting prosecution witnesses, thus assailing the impugned order. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue or state. The Magistrate's reasoning, as reflected in the impugned order, was that the complainant must prove a legally enforceable debt, that defence applications can be filed later, and that VAT, Income Tax, or GST documents are irrelevant for the case's adjudication.