Rafiq a Razak Patel Vs Ankush Manikrao Dhere — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Rafiq a Razak Patel Vs Ankush Manikrao Dhere — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the de-exhibiting application remains rejected, with liberty expressly left open to the petitioner to raise the question of the cheques during the course of the argument in the complaint.

Issue for consideration

Whether there is any provision permitting de-exhibiting of documents (cheques Exh. 69 to 75) already exhibited during the complainant's evidence, so as to sustain the challenge to the trial court's rejection of the de-exhibiting application. +1 more

Court's answer

There is no provision to de-exhibit documents once exhibited; on that basis the application for de-exhibiting stands rejected and the challenge to the trial court's refusal cannot succeed.

Ratio / Principle

This is not the stage for the High Court to record any finding on whether the exhibited cheques are originals; the question is left open for the petitioner to raise while arguing the complaint and for the trial court to consider while deciding the complaint, and no finality attaches to it as on today.

Key takeaways

Although the de-exhibiting application is rejected, it remains open to the petitioner to raise the question of the cheques while arguing the complaint.ratio¶30
Not inclined to entertain the petition, the Court disposes of the petition.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Writ Petition (Aurangabad Bench) - De-exhibition of cheque exhibits - Cheques marked Exhs. 69 to 75 'subject to objection' during the complainant's evidence after the accused objected that they were laminated and possibly not original, a colour photocopy having been produced without permission to lead secondary evidence - Accused's application Exh.86 to de-exhibit them rejected by trial court order dated 17-12-2024 on grounds of eleven-month delay, non-challenge to the exhibiting order and absence of any provision to de-exhibit - Held: (i) there is no provision to de-exhibit the documents; (ii) the present stage is not one at which findings should be recorded on whether the cheques are originals - question left open to be urged during final arguments in the complaint and for the trial court to consider while deciding it, with no finality attaching as on date - Petition disposed of.

2025:BHC-AUG:19333

(1)

25criwp426.25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

25 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 426 OF 2025

RAFIQ A RAZAK PATEL

….Petitioner

VERSUS

ANKUSH MANIKRAO DHERE

…..Respondent

Mr. T. M. Venjane, Advocate for the petitioner

CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.

DATE : 22^nd JULY, 2025

P. C.

Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner.

The petitioner- original accused had filed an

application for de-exhibiting the documents i.e. cheque

exhibited during the evidence of complainant.

The accused facing trial had raised an objection to

exhibit the said cheques on the ground that the cheques in question produced in the court are laminated cheques and may

1 of 4

(2) 25criwp426.25

not be original. A color photo copy is produced without obtaining permission to lead secondary evidence on record.The court considered the objection and marked the cheques as Exh. 69 to 75 subject to objection.

The accused thereafter filed an application Exh.86 with a prayer to de-exhibit the document i.e. Exh.69 to 75. The learned trial Judge by impugned order dated 17-12-2024 rejected that application as well. It is observed that the application for de-exhibiting the documents is filed after almost eleven months. The order of exhibiting the documents is not challenged. There is no provision to de-exhibit the documents. By observing this, the application came to be rejected.

Mr. Vyanjane, learned advocate vehemently submits that in the present case no permission is sought to lead the secondary evidence. The court has still exhibited the cheques which are laminated. Other documents were also exhibited in routine manner without considering that those are not properly

2 of 4

(3) 25criwp426.25

exhibited. He, therefore, submits that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate this aspect and has rejected the application.

This court has considered the evidence to the extent wherein cheques are exhibited and the learned trial Judge has put up this note that cheques are exhibited subject to objection.

On hearing the submission and on going through the application and orders, this court finds that there is no provision to de-exhibit the documents. So far as cheques whether it is original or not is concerned, this court finds that this is not the stage where this court should record any findings. The application for de-exhibiting is rejected, however, it is still open for the petitioner to raise the said question while arguing the complaint. It is open for the trial court to consider this aspect while deciding the complaint. As on today, no finality can be given to this aspect.

Considering above, this court is not inclined to

3 of 4

(4) 25criwp426.25

entertain the petition. The petition, therefore, stands disposed off.

It is open for the petitioner to raise an issue during

the course of the argument in the complaint.

[KISHORE C. SANT, J.]

VishalK/25criwp426.25

4 of 4