Allowed

Saurabh Agrawal v. Indusind Bank Limited

Chhattisgarh HC8 Aug 2022WP227/61/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petitioner challenged the dismissal of an application seeking production of documents under Section 91 Cr.P.C. in a cheque bounce case, arguing the trial had begun. The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the trial court order, directing reconsideration of the application.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; trial court order under Section 91 Cr.P.C. set aside; application directed to be reconsidered afresh.

Saurabh Agrawal Vs Indusind Bank Limited — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

Page 1 of 3

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

W.P.(227) No. 61 of 2022

¶5

Saurabh Agrawal S/o Shri Suresh Agrawal, Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 02,near Bavali Kuaa, Tehsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Indusind Bank Limited Branch Raigarh (C.G.), Through Its Branch Manager & Power Of Attorney Holder, Arjun Singh Chouhan S/o. Shri Ashok Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o. IndusInd Bank Limited, Office Shop No. 53-54, First Floor, Krishna Complex, Infront Of Ganga Nurisng Home, Raigarh, Tehsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Applicant : Shri Surfaraj Khan, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Shri Ashish Surana and Shri Chetan Singh Chauhan, Advocates.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶12

08.08.2022

¶13

Heard.

¶14

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.12.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh, District Raigarh in Complaint Case No.88 of 2015, parties being IndusInd Bank Limited vs. Saurabh Agrawal.

¶15

1. The complaint case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is pending before the trial Court which was filed by the respondent – IndusInd Bank Limited on the ground that cheque No. 996295 was issued for discharge of liability amounting Rs.5,14,234/- but the same was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Notice was served upon the applicant/ petitioner and thereafter, complaint case was filed.

¶16

1. Earlier an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. was moved before the learned trial Court and the same was rejected vide order dated 6.1.2020 on the ground that the documents which

¶17

Page 2 of 3

¶18

were called by the applicant may be produced at subsequent stage. The order was challenged before this Court by filing W.P. (227) No.228 of 2020 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 4.2.2021 holding that the trial has not begun and as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.M.T.C. Ltd and Another vs. MEDCHL Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. and Another , reported in (2002) 1 SCC 234 , the authorization can be rectified even at the subsequent stage, therefore, the objection raised by the petitioner’s side on this point was not made at the proper stage.

¶19

The trial has begun in the complaint case, the case was fixed for evidence of complainant before the learned trial Court on 23.12.2021 and thereafter, the petitioner again moved an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. for production and supply of the documents regarding loan agreement, loan sanction and loan account statement on 5.3.2021. The said application was rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 16.12.2021.

¶20

1. Against the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 16.12.2021, this petition has been filed.

¶21

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial has begun, evidence stage has come and it is the correct stage where the necessary documents can be called or produced before the learned trial Court with intend to defend the case in proper manner and without those documents, the complaint case is not maintainable.

¶22

1. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the contentions of counsel for the petitioner and submits that the earlier application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. was dismissed by learned trial Court and on same set of facts, again application has been moved and again it has been dismissed. Earlier, W.P.(227) No.228 of 2020 was dismissed by this Court, therefore, this petition is not maintainable on same set of facts and grounds.

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of TRL Krosaki

¶24

Page 3 of 3

¶25

Refractories Ltd. vs. SMS Asia Private Limited and Another , reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 217 and referred the paragraph 21 where it is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there is any serious dispute with regard to the person prosecuting the complaint not being authorized or if it is to be demonstrated that the person who filed the complaint has no knowledge of the transaction and, as such that person could not have instituted and prosecuted the complaint, it would be open for the accused to dispute the position and establish the same during the course of the trial.

¶26

1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶27

1. The judgment which has been cited by learned counsel for the respondent in the case of TRL Krosaki Refractories Limited vs. SMS Asia Private Limited and Another (supra) is against the respondent as it clearly says that it would be open for the accused to dispute the position and establish the same during the course of the trial. The trial has begun, the case is fixed for evidence and as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court the petitioner may revive his application at the proper stage. The earlier application moved under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. and consequent W.P.(227) were dismissed on the ground that at that time, the trial was not begun. In my opinion, the proper stage has come to move an application and more particularly, the application if allowed will not effect the merits of the case of the respondent, therefore, this petition is allowed. The order passed by the learned trial Court is set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner filed under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. afresh after affording opportunity to opposite party.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶30

Nimmi

Saurabh Agrawal v. Indusind Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh Agrawal v. Indusind Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Niranjan Ratre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Aasan @ Aasha Ram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mrs. Sufiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Girdhar Prasad Gupta Vs Gopal Prasad Gupta

Smt. Kiran Devi Agarwal and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Smt. Sarla Raman Jogi Vs (a) Rajiv Jogi