Dismissed

Madangopal Gandhi S/O Sh. Nanagram Saini, v. Tulsi Narayan Gupta S/O Late Sh. Badri Narayan

Rajasthan HC19 May 2025CRLMP/1198/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a petition challenging an order that rejected a petitioners application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to summons the complainants financial documents. The court held the trial court order had no infirmity as Section 138 NI Act creates a presumption against the drawer that can be rebutted during cross-examination.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing the order dated 09.12.2024 dismissing the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was dismissed; order below confirmed.

Madangopal Gandhi S/O Sh. Nanagram Saini, Vs Tulsi… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:20992]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1198/2025

¶4

Madangopal Gandhi S/o Sh. Nanagram Saini, R/o In Front Of Vishwakarma, Peeli Ki Talai, Amer, District Jaipur.

¶5

Roshan Enterprises, Proprietor Sh. Madangopal Gandhi, R/o Peeli Ki Talai , Amer, District Jaipur.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Tulsi Narayan Gupta S/o Late Sh. Badri Narayan, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Gandhi Chowk, Bus Stand, Amer, District Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Srajana Shreshtha For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶12

Order

¶13

19/05/2025

¶14

The instant petition is filed by the petitioner under section 528 of BNSS for quashing and setting aside the order dated 09.12.2024, whereby the application of the petitioner under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. for calling the ITR of the complainant from the year 2017 to 2024 alongwith the Aadhar Card, Pan Card and bank statement of the complainant was dismissed.

¶15

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the complaint respondent has alleged that he gave amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Twelve Lakhs) in cash to the petitioner and to rebut the claim of the complainant the ITR of the complainant from the year 2017 to 2024 alongwith the Aadhar Card, Pan Card and bank statement of the complainant are necessary.

¶16

Heard and perused the material available on the record.

[2025:RJ-JP:20992]

[CRLMP-1198/2025]

(2 of 2)

Trial court vide impugned order dated 09.12.2024, dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. observing that the accused is free to cross-examine the complainant at appropriate stage and complainant cannot be compelled to produce the documents as sought for .

¶21

The provisions of Section 138 of NI Act are very clear and the presumption is against the person who has issued the cheques. If the petitioner has any defence then the petitioner is free to rebut it during the cross-examination or by way of producing his evidence before the concerned court. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 09.12.2024.

¶22

Accordingly, instant petition for quashing and setting aside the order dated 09.12.2024, is hereby dismissed.

¶23

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶24

ashu /13

Madangopal Gandhi S/O Sh. Nanagram Saini, v. Tulsi Narayan Gupta S/O Late Sh. Badri Narayan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madangopal Gandhi S/O Sh. Nanagram Saini, v. Tulsi Narayan Gupta S/O Late Sh. Badri Narayan

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

Satyanarayan Gupta Son of Late Mr. Radhe Shyam Gupta, Vs the State of Rajasthan

Victim Vs State of Rajasthan

Sohail Anwar Lone S/O Mohammad Anwar Lone Vs Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd.

Bhaskar Pareek S/O Late Shri Girdhari Lal Pareek, Vs the State of Rajasthan

Agresh Sharma Son of Shri Buddhiram Sharma Vs Shri Laxmikant Biyani Son of Late Shri Shivbhagwan Biyani

Chaman S/O Pannalal Vs the State of Rajasthan