Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dimension Tours And Travels vs Principal Saint Paul Sr.Sec.School And ... on 24 July, 2018
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3307/2018
Dimension Tours And Travels, Through Its Director Jayant Julka
S/o Satyapal Julka , R/o Pritampura, New Delhi.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Principal, Saint Paul Sr. Secondary School, Mala Road,
Kota, Raj.
2. Rakesh Jutshi S/o Shri D.n. Jutshi , R/o 1B/a.d., Shalimar
Bagh, New Delhi 110008.
3. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarun Mishra For Respondent(s) : Ms. Meenakshi Pareek PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
-/Order/-
24/07/2018 The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to assail the order dated 13.4.2018 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, N.I. Act cases, No.4, Kota, whereby application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. in Regular Criminal Case No. 237/2011 titled Principal, St. Pauls School & Ors. vs. Dimension Tours & Travels & Ors. was dismissed. It is further prayed that alongwith the impugned order, the order dated 8.5.2018 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Kota in revision petition preferred by the petitioner whereby order dated 13.4.2018 was affirmed, be also set aside.
Briefly stated, cheque issued by the petitioner had bounced and resultantly, respondent no.1 through respondent (2 of 3) [CRLMP-3307/2018] no.2 filed a complaint before the trial court for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the complainant in cross-examination admitted that between the parties another FIR No.50/2012 was registered at Police Station Prasad Nagar, New Delhi. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the said FIR, a compromise was affected and the amount of the bounced cheque qua which proceedings have been initiated at Kota, was paid. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that once compromise was affected before the court and amount of cheque has been paid, it is necessary to place those documents on record, and hence, a grave error was committed by the court below to dismiss the application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to requisition the record from the court where the compromise was affected.
The right course for the petitioner is to obtain certified copy of the FIR, compromise affected and the orders passed by the court at New Delhi to demonstrate that the compromise has been affected and the amount of cheque qua which prosecution has been launched at Kota, was part of the compromise. The petitioner can obtain the certified copy of the said documents and can put the same to the complainant by taking recourse to Section 294 Cr.P.C.
Section 294 Cr.P.C. reads as under:-
"294. No formal proof of certain documents.
(1) Where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution (3 of 3) [CRLMP-3307/2018] or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.
(2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.
(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed: Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved."
Hence, it is ordered that the petitioner before commencement of his defence evidence shall produce list of all documents to be relied by him during the course of the trial. In consonance with section 294 (3) Cr.P.C., these documents will be put to the complainant for admission and if the genuineness of the said documents is not disputed, as per the mandate of Section 294(3), the said documents shall be read into the evidence. A document which is admissible, requires no evidence. However, if a document is denied, the petitioner may call officer of that concerned court or official of police to prove that document in accordance with the provisions of law. If advised, the petitioner can also step into witness box as defence witness under Section 315 Cr.P.C.
In view of above, no interference is warranted and this Court has no doubt that in case petitioner follows the procedure laid in Section 294 Cr.P.C. and call the concerned official or step into witness box at time of defence evidence, the trial court will be able to find the truth, as projected by the petitioner in his defence during the cross-examination of the complainant.
With the observations made above, the present petition is disposed of.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J Mak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)