Dismissed

Punamchand Purohit v. M/S Laxmi Haritage

Rajasthan HC30 Oct 2019CRLMP/2995/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur dismissed the appeal against the trial court's order allowing the belated production and exhibition of documents under Section 311 Cr.P.C., finding no perversity in the decision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's criminal miscellaneous petition and stay petition dismissed; trial court directed to re-summon complainant.

Punamchand Purohit Vs M/S Laxmi Haritage — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2995/2019

¶3

Punamchand Purohit S/o Sh. Shivkumar Ji Purohit, Aged About 57 Years, B/c Brahmin, R/o Daga Chowk, Near Chacha Pan Wali Ki Dukan, Bikaner.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

M/s Laxmi Haritage, Through Brijmohan Chandak, Near Kothari Hospital, Jaisalmer Road, Bikaner.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.S. Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manas Khatri

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶10

Order

¶11

30/10/2019

¶12

The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.05.2019 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act), Court No.1, Bikaner in Criminal Case No.642/2016 whereby the trial court allowed the application filed by the respondent complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant has filed two documents i.e. partnership—deed dated 05.10.2017 executed between the parties and invoice dated 12.3.2019 before the trial Court. Counsel further submits that an application has also been filed by the complainant before the trial court for exhibiting the aforesaid two documents and for resummoning the complainant for his evidence. Counsel submits that the complainant has filed the aforesaid two documents at a

¶14

(2 of 2)

¶15

[CRLMP-2995/2019]

¶16

belated stage just in order to fill up the lacuna. In such circumstances, the impugned order dated 16.5.2019 is patently illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶17

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondentcomplainant submits that the aforesaid documents were filed after recording the evidence and now the complainant wants to exhibit the same for just and proper adjudication of the case. Therefore the trial court has rightly ordered to exhibit these documents.

¶18

I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the impugned order as also the material available on record.

¶19

The complainant filed an application alongwith the aforesaid documents, which were taken on record by the learned trial court and now the complainant wants to exhibit these documents for just decision of the case. Hence, I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court. No interference is called from this Court. The learned trial Court is directed to re-summon the complainant for his evidence immediately and the petitioner would have a right to crossexamine the same.

¶20

Hence, the instant criminal misc. petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed.

¶21

Stay petition is also dismissed.

¶22

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶23

144-Ishan/-

Punamchand Purohit v. M/S Laxmi Haritage

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punamchand Purohit v. M/S Laxmi Haritage

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

Moolchand Vs State

Magna Ram Vs State and Anr.

Bhagwan Singh Vs State and Anr.

Jawana Ram Vs State

Vakul Chopra Vs State of Rajasthan

Manoj Sen (Khichi) Vs State of Rajasthan