Dismissed

Vadivel v. Jaganatharao

Madras HC29 Mar 2021CRL OP/6176/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal original petition challenged the dismissal of an application to produce the respondent's income tax returns. The High Court upheld the lower court's order, ruling that the petitioner was attempting to fish for evidence and that the respondent need not be compelled to file returns if the petitioner failed to prove his case first.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 08.12.2020 dismissing Section 91 Cr.P.C. application upheld; Connected M.P. closed.

Vadivel Vs Jaganatharao — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 29.03.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.6176 of 2021 and Crl.MP No.4083 of 2021

¶6

Vadivel ... Petitioner
Vs.
Jaganatharao ... Respondent
Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C. To setaside the order dated 08.12.2020 passed in Crl.MP
No.507 of 2020 in STC No.122 of 2018 on the file of the Fast
Track at Magisterial Level, Vellore (Judicial Magistrate, Fast
Track Court at Magisterial level, Vellore), vellore District.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Silambuselvan
For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohammed Riyaz
Additional Public prosecutor
ORDER
This petition has been filed challenging the
order passed by the Court below dismissing the application filed
by the petitioner under Section 91 of Cr.pc to direct the income
tax officer to produce the income tax returns of the complainant
from the year 2012 to 2019.

¶7

The petitioner is facing trial before the Court below under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This complaint was filed in the year 2018. The respondent who is the complainant was examined as PW1 and his Auditor was examined as PW2. Both these witnesses were cross examined by the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.PC to direct the income tax officer to produce the income tax return of the respondent from the year 2012 – 2019. This application was dismissed by the Court below. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed before this Court.

¶8

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶9

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent even during the cross examination has stated that he will always keep a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to 10 lakhs as cash in his hand. The learned counsel therefore submitted that this statement made by the respondent will have to be corroborated from the Income Tax returns filed by the respondent and the respondent has filed the income tax returns only for the year 2019. According to the respondent, the amount was borrowed by the petitioner in the year 2017 and unless, the income tax returns for the period prior to 2017 up to 2018 is marked the financial wherewithal of the respondent, to have lent such a huge amount to the petitioner cannot be proved. The learned counsel submitted it is for this reason that the petition under Section 91 of Cr.PC was filed before the Court below.

¶10

This Court has carefully considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the order passed by the Court below.

¶11

In the considered view of this Court, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Court below. The Court below has given cogent reasons as to why the application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 of Cr.PC cannot be entertained. The Court below has rightly come to a conclusion that the petitioner is only trying to fish out evidence. That apart, the petitioner has made an effort by calling upon the respondent to furnish the relevant income tax returns to prove his financial wherewithal. If the respondent does not choose to file the income tax returns for the relevant period, he cannot be compelled to produce those income tax returns and it will always be left open to the concerned Court to draw an inference on the conduct of the parties.

¶12

In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Court below and accordingly, this Criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶13

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VI)

¶14

//True Copy//

¶15

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

rka

¶18

¶19

The Fast Track at Magisterial Level, Vellore (Judicial Magistrate,

¶20

Fast Track Court at Magisterial level, (Vellore), vellore District.

¶21

The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai. Crl.O.P.No.6176 of 2021

¶22

rld[co] srg 13/07/2021

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Vadivel v. Jaganatharao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vadivel v. Jaganatharao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Seema Vs State by

Rani Vs The Director of Prosecution (i/c)

R.H.Annadurai Vs State Rep.by

Jaya Mohan Vs State Rep.by

Lalitha Vs The Superintendent of police

B.Kavitha Vs The Superintendent of Police