Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shree Krishna Traders Through ... vs Smt. Nupur Kumari Shrivastav on 2 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3271
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 2ND OF FEBRUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 58432 of 2025
SHREE KRISHNA TRADERS
Versus
SMT.NUPUR KUMARI SRIVASTAVA
Appearance:
Petitioner Shree Krishna Traders through proprietor Sanjeev
Rawat, present in person.
Shri Gaurav Kumar Verma, advocate for respondent.
.....................................................................................................................
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023 is filed challenging the order dated 21.11.2025, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for adducing additional documentary evidence was rejected.
2 The exposition of facts, in brief, giving rise to present petition, is as under :-
A. The petitioner M/s Shree Krishna Traders filed a written complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act inter-alia alleging that the respondent/accused had given two cheques in furtherance of the commercial transaction. The complainant submitted the Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR DATT Signing time: 02-02-2026 20:28:01 2 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3271 cheques for payment at Bank of India, Branch Freeganj, Ujjain. The cheques were dishonoured with intimation memo dated 6.1.2007. The complainant issued demand notice dated 17.1.2007 to the respondent. The respondent did not pay the amount of cheques. Therefore, the complaint is filed for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint was filed in the year 2007 which remained pending till date.
B. The case at SCNIA 6797 of 2015 was pending for evidence of complainant. The further examination-in-chief of the complainant was recorded on 11.10.2025. The cross-examination of the complainant concluded on 15.10.2025. The complainant filed an application for submission of additional documentary evidence on 13.10.2025, inter-alia proposing six documents showing transaction interse between accused No.1, accused No. 4, accused no. 5 and accused no. 7 and the correspondence relating thereto. It is stated in the application that the documents are relevant and important to show that the cheques in question were given in relation to the agreement dated 7.8.2006 between accused No. 1 and accused no. 5 regarding supply of metal scrape and to show in furtherance of transaction the cheque in questions were given to the complainant.
C. The trial Court i.e. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain heard both the parties and rejected the application vide impugned order dated 21.11.2025 mainly on the ground that the application proposing the documents appears to have been filed to fill up the lacuna in the evidence of the complainant. The proposed documents were in knowledge of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR DATT Signing time: 02-02-2026 20:28:01 3 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3271 complainant. There is no satisfactory explanation for delay in filing of these documents.
3. The present petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, is filed assailing the impugned order mainly on following grounds:
1. The proposed documents were necessary for just and fair trial.
The trial Court committed an error in holding that additional documentary evidence are sought to be brought on record to fill up lacuna and omission at a later stage. Infact, the additional documents are in respect of chain of events in the business transaction between the petitioner and accused No. 1 to 8.
2. The proposed documents have direct relevance to the matter in issue.
3. The documents were received by the complainant on 29.10.2025 from an ex-employee of the respondent. Thereafter, they were submitted immediately before the trial court. These documents relate to transaction interse between the respondents, therefore, they were not in possession of the complainant.
On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 21.11.2025 be set aside and the additional documentary evidence be taken on record of the trial Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in addition to the grounds mentioned in the petition submits that the documents are relevant for fair and complete adjudication of the matter in issue. These documents were Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR DATT Signing time: 02-02-2026 20:28:01 4 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3271 not in possession of the complainant/petitioner at the time of his evidence. The petitioner has proposed the documents immediately on receipt of these documents. Considering the relevancy of the documents, they ought to be taken on record, but the trial Court has committed manifest error in rejection the application. To buttress his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rajaram Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2013 SC 3081.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the complaint is pending since 2007. The evidence of the complainant started in year 2014. The complainant was examined on 11.10.2025. He was cross-examined on 15.10.2025. After completion of the examination of the complainant these documents were proposed by the complainant for the first time on 30.10.2025, when the evidence of the complainant was already closed. The documents are obviously filed to fill up the lacuna in the evidence. The proposed documents are not relevant, therefore, the trial court did not commit any error in rejecting the application.
6. Heard both the parties. Perused the record.
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Rajaram Prasad Yadav (supra) laid down general principles for consideration of application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as under:-
23. From a conspectus consideration of the above decisions, while dealing with an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. read along with 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, we feel the following principles will have to be borne in mind by the Courts:Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR DATT Signing time: 02-02-2026 20:28:01 5
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3271
a) Whether the Court is right in thinking that the new evidence is needed by it?
Whether the evidence sought to be led in under Section 311 is noted by the Court for a just decision of a case?
b) The exercise of the widest discretionary power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should ensure that the judgment should not be rendered on inchoate, inconclusive speculative presentation of facts, as thereby the ends of justice would be defeated.
c) If evidence of any witness appears to the Court to be essential to the just decision of the case, it is the power of the Court to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person.
d) The exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should be resorted to only with the object of finding out the truth or obtaining proper proof for such facts, which will lead to a just and correct decision of the case.
e) The exercise of the said power cannot be dubbed as filling in a lacuna in a prosecution case, unless the facts and circumstances of the case make it apparent that the exercise of power by the Court would result in causing serious prejudice to the accused, resulting in miscarriage of justice.
f) The wide discretionary power should be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily.
g) The Court must satisfy itself that it was in every respect essential to examine such a witness or to recall him for further examination in order to arrive at a just decision of the case.
h) The object of Section 311 Cr.P.C. simultaneously imposes a duty on the Court to determine the truth and to render a just decision.
i) The Court arrives at the conclusion that additional evidence is necessary, not because it would be impossible to pronounce the judgment without it, but because there would be a failure of justice without such evidence being considered.
j) Exigency of the situation, fair play and good sense should be the safe guard, while exercising the discretion. The Court should bear in mind that no party in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors and that if proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the Court should be magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to be rectified.
k) The Court should be conscious of the position that after all the trial is basically for the prisoners and the Court should afford an opportunity to them in the fairest manner possible. In that parity of reasoning, it would be safe to err in favour of the accused getting an opportunity rather than protecting the prosecution against possible prejudice at the cost of the accused. The Court Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR DATT Signing time: 02-02-2026 20:28:01 6 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3271 should bear in mind that improper or capricious exercise of such a discretionary power, may lead to undesirable results.
l) The additional evidence must not be received as a disguise or to change the nature of the case against any of the party.
m) The power must be exercised keeping in mind that the evidence that is likely to be tendered, would be germane to the issue involved and also ensure that an opportunity of rebuttal is given to the other party.
n) The power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must therefore, be invoked by the Court only in order to meet the ends of justice for strong and valid reasons and the same must be exercised with care, caution and circumspection. The Court should bear in mind that fair trial entails the interest of the accused, the victim and the society and, therefore, the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the persons concerned, must be ensured being a constitutional goal, as well as a human right.
8. The material on record is examined in the light of aforestated preposition of law.
9. Sanjeev Rawat, proprietor of M/s SK Traders had filed a written complaint dated 23.2.2007 for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420, 35, 36, 37 and 120B of IPC inter-alia stating that the complainant and accused had business transaction and trust each other. The accused had given him two cheques one in name of Solo Steel Company (Pvt.) Ltd. for amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-for Superlink partner and second, in the name of Milly Impex Pvt. Ltd. All the accused unanimously sent both the cheques to him through post. All the accused worked in consortium. Accused unanimously assured him payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- on presentation of cheque before the Bank. He accepted the cheques and presented the same for encashment at his bank. He had received the cheque towards transaction with the accused, but the accused in conspiracy deceitfully had given him bogus cheque. The Hindi version of the averment of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR DATT Signing time: 02-02-2026 20:28:01 7 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3271 complaint is reproduced for reference:-
''2. यह कक, अभभिययोगगी एववं अभभिययुकगण कका आपस ममें वकापकाररिक ववहकारि हयोनने सने पररिचय हहै औरि एक ददूसरिने परि पररिचय हयोनने कने नकातने भवशवकास रिखतने हह।
3. यह कक, अभभिययोगगी कने वकापकाररिक ववहकारि पनेटने अभभिययुकतगणण नने एकमत सने भवशकास कदलकातने हुए दयो चनेक क्रमश: कदनकावंक 29-12-2006 जयो कक सयोलयो सटगील कमपनगी पकाय०भलभम० कने नकाम कका चकारि लकाख रूपयने कका फकारि सयुपरिललवंक पकाटर्टनरि ककी हहैभसयत सने बहक ऑफ बडड़ौदका थकाणने पदूवर्ट नवंबरि 12480200000288 भजसकका नवंबरि 653535 तथका ददूसरिका चनेक मगीलगी इमपनेकस पकाय०भलभम० कने नकाम कका कदनकावंक 31-12-2006 कका रूपयने एक लकाख कका बहक ऑफ बडड़ौदका शकाखका थकाणने पदूवर्ट कका चनेक भजसकका खकातका क्रमकावंक 12480200000288 चनेक नवंबरि 653536 कका कदयका।
उक दयोनण चनेक अभभिययुकगणण नने एकमत हयोकरि भियुगतकान हनेतयु उजहैन जररियने डकाक पनेभषित ककयने . औरि अभभिययुकगणण नने यह पदूवर्ट भवशकास कदलकायका कक ववहकारि पनेटने जयो अभभिययोगगी कयो अभभिययुकगण उक वरणर्टत चनेक पनेभषित करि रिहने हह, बहक ममें रिकाशगी हहै जयो पसतयुत करिनने परि भियुगतकान हयो जकावनेगका। अभभिययोगगी नने अभभिययुकगणण परि पदूवर्ट पररिचय औरि भवशकास हयोनने कने ककारिण ववहकारि पनेटने उक दयोनण चनेक उजहैन पकाप्त हयोनने परि तवगीककारि करि भलयने औरि बहक ममें भसकरिनने हनेतयु अपनने बहक खकातने ममें पसतयुत ककयने।
5. यह कक, अभभिययुकगण एक ददूसरिने सने सवंबवंभधित हहै तथका अभभिययुकगणण कका एक सवंगठन बनका हुआ हहै जयो एक-ददूसरिने कने ककायर्ट ममें एकमत हयोकरि ववहकारि करितने हह औरि एकमत सने अभभिययुकगणण नने यह भवशकास कदलकातने हुए कक अभभिययोगगी कयो जयो ववहकारि पनेटने चनेक उपरि वरणर्टत जयुमलका पकावंच लकाख रूपयने कने कदयने हह, वने बहक ममें पसतयुभत परि भियुगतकान हयो जकावमेंगने। औरि इसगी भवशकास परि अभभिययोगगी नने ववहकारि पनेटने चनेक पकाप्त ककयने थने लनेककन अभभिययुकगणण कका उक ककृतय धियोखकाधिडगी कका पकट हुआ जयो अभभिययुकगणण नने षिडयवंत्रपदूवर्टक अभभिययोगगी कने सकाथ घटनका बयोगस चनेक दनेकरि औरि यह जकानतने हुए कक उक दयोनण चनेक ककी रिकाभश कका भियुगतकान नहह हयोगका धियोखका दनेनने कने भलयने हगी भवशकासघकात करितने हुए बनेईमकानगीपदूवर्टक उक चनेक दनेकरि आपरिकाभधिक ककृतय ककयका हहै।''
10. In the enclosure list of complaint at Serial no. 2, the complainant has specifically stated that the record with regard to the transaction between the complainant and the accused in respect of which all the accused have unanimously forwarded him the cheques in question will be called. Thus, the complainant has pleaded that the cheques in question were given to him in furtherance of business transaction with the accused and had proposed to call the record of transaction in the complaint itself. The respondent/accused being aware of the inter-se transaction cannot claim surprise or prejudice by proposed documentary evidence. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR DATT Signing time: 02-02-2026 20:28:01 8 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:3271 proposed documentary evidence is relevant for fair and complete adjudication of the dispute in issues and the cheques in question. The learned trial Court committed an error in denying the opportunity to propose the relevant documentary evidence. The evidence of complainant is not complete. The matter is still pending for further evidence. Mere minor delay in proposing the documents is not sufficient to discard the relevant evidence necessary for complete adjudication of the dispute.The proposed evidence cannot be said to be filling in the lacuna, rather it is in furtherance of evidence of Sanjeev Rawat (CW-1).
11. In view of above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court has committed manifest irregularity in rejecting the application for taking the relevant documentary evidence on record. The veracity, authenticity and admissibility of the documents may be considered by the trial Court at the time of evidence and proposal of the documents in accordance with law.
11. Consequently, the impugned order dated 21.11.2025 relating to application (IA No. 2 of 2025) is set aside. The trial Court is directed to permit the proposed documents in accordance with law.
C.C. as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR) JUDGE BDJ Signature Not Verified Signed by: BHUNESHWAR DATT Signing time: 02-02-2026 20:28:01