Shyam Dass vs. M/S R.V. Hardware And Sanitary Stores

Held

The Court held that the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was devoid of merits and therefore dismissed. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's failure to furnish cogent reasons for the delay in producing the GST records. The Court noted that the application was filed on 23.11.2022, while the respondent had led evidence on 28.03.2022, and the petitioner had an opportunity to lead defence evidence but did not. This inaction was considered a lack of diligence and negated bonafide. Furthermore, the Court found that the documents sought to be placed on record had no relevance to the defence raised by the petitioner, which was that the cheque was not issued to the respondent for any lawful liability but was given to a third party. Consequently, the documents were not deemed essential for a just decision of the case. The petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Shyam Dass Rani, filed a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging an order dated 11.03.2024, which disallowed an application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The application sought to place GST records pertaining to the respondent, M/S R.V. Hardware & Sanitary Stores, on record. The case involves a bounced cheque from 2016. The respondent's complaint was initially dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate. The High Court, in a previous judgment dated 06.12.2021, remanded the case for the respondent to lead evidence regarding partnership and authorization. The respondent led evidence on 28.03.2022, and the petitioner was given an opportunity to lead defence evidence but did not. The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed on 23.11.2022.

Key Issues

1. Whether the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for placing GST records on record was maintainable, considering the delay and lack of cogent reasons for not producing the documents earlier, as per Section 311 Cr.P.C.? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was disallowed by the impugned order. The petitioner contended that no cogent reason was provided for the delay in producing the GST records, which were sought to be produced on 23.11.2022, despite the respondent having led evidence on 28.03.2022. This inaction demonstrated a lack of diligence and negated bonafide. The petitioner further argued that the documents sought to be placed on record had nothing to do with the defence raised by the petitioner and were therefore not essential for a just decision of the case. Respondent's arguments: No arguments were recorded for the respondent as they were represented by 'Nemo'.