The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the Trial Court's refusal to produce documents under Section 91 Cr.P.C. relating to a cheque dishonour dispute involving non-delivery of jewellery.
Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; application for production of documents declined.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~95
Through: Mr. Shikhar Mittal, Mr. Shantanu A. and Mr. Rishabh Sharma, Advs.
M/S WAHI JEWELLERS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rajesh Samanotra and Mr. Varun Gupta, Advs.
CORAM:
% 16.07.2024
CRL.M.A. 20542/2024
Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 5370/2024 & CRL.M.A. 20543/2024
Page 1 of 3
CRL.M.C. 5370/2024
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/08/2024 at 11:13:25
favour of respondent in July 2020 against purchase of certain jewellery items. The case of the petitioner is that the aforesaid jewellery items were never delivered to the petitioner. Further, a complaint is stated to have been lodged with the police in April 2021, though the cheques were dishonoured in the month of August 2020 and proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. were thereafter initiated.
Reverting back to facts of the case, if the jewellery items were not delivered against the cheques issued by the petitioner, in normal course of conduct, the payment of cheques could have been stopped instead of
Page 2 of 3
CRL.M.C. 5370/2024
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/08/2024 at 11:13:25
permitting the same to be later dishonoured, since the disputes between the parties on the point of delivery had already arisen. The explanation of the petitioner in respect of the documents sought under Section 91 Cr.P.C. has been dealt in detail by the learned Trial Court. Appropriate adverse inference against the complainant on the point of sale and delivery, can be duly drawn by the learned Trial Court, on the basis of cross examination of complainant, if the explanation for non-production of any relevant documents is not found to be convincing.
Nothing stated herein shall tantamount to expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J
JULY 16, 2024/ akc
Page 3 of 3
CRL.M.C. 5370/2024
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/08/2024 at 11:13:25
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 91 Cr.P.C. documents sought by the petitioner for defence purposes should be permitted production.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Trial Court's order declining the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Suresh Kalmadi vs. CBIRelied on¶22
Suresh Kalmadi vs. CBI
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ajay Taneja
M/s Wahi Jewellers
Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
