Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kapil Mangnani vs Anil Singhi on 20 May, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13547
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 20th MAY 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No.29636 OF 2024
Kapil Manghnani
Versus
Anil Singhi
Appearance:
Shri Chinmay Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Valmik Sakargayen, Advocate for the respondent.
__________________________________________________________
ORDER
1. This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed assailing the order dated 02.07.2024 passed by the learned XXIInd Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Revision No.274/2024 affirming the order dated 26.04.2024, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in SCNIA No.3134236/2016 whereby the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected.
2. The exposition of the facts giving rise to the present petition is as Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREETHA NAIR Signing time: 21-05-2025 18:18:21 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13547 2 under :-
A. The petitioner is facing trial for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore registered at SCNIA No.3134236/2016. The trial is pending for defense evidence.
B. The petitioner/accused filed an application under Section 315 of Code of Criminal Procedure dated 22.01.2024 stating that on the date of alleged transaction i.e. 26.08.2013, the accused was not present in Indore, rather, he was at Mumbai. The accused had executed a partnership deed with Rajvinder Singh at Mumbai, therefore, the accused proposed to examine himself for exhibiting the partnership deed.
C. The learned trial Court rejected the application vide order dated 26.04.2024, which was affirmed by the learned XXIInd Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 02.07.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No.274/2024.
3. The impugned orders dated 02.07.2024 and 26.04.2024 are assailed in present petition on following grounds :- Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREETHA NAIR Signing time: 21-05-2025 18:18:21
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13547 3
(i) The learned Lower Court committed error in not allowing the accused to lead his evidence in furtherance of mandatory provisions under Section 247 r/w 243 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
(ii) The accused is a competent witness to depose his own case as per Section 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(iii) The learned Lower Court committed error of law in curtailing the right of the petitioner/accused to defend his case by leading evidence as per provisions of Section 315 of the Code or Criminal Procedure,1973.
On these grounds, it is prayed the impugned orders be set aside and the trial Court be directed to proceed with the trial only after defense evidence proposed by the accused.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in addition to the grounds submits that the petitioner/accused has been denied the opportunity to submit his defense. The accused has specifically raised his defense in cross-examination of the complainant in Para-19, 31 and 32, therefore, the impugned orders are erroneous. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREETHA NAIR Signing time: 21-05-2025 18:18:21 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13547 4 Gajendra Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan Sahu V/s. The State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 612 to buttress his contentions.
5. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the petition on the ground of malafide and delay.
6. Heard both the parties and perused the record.
7. The impugned order dated 26.04.2024, passed by the learned trial Court and the order dated 02.07.2024 passed by the Revisional Court reveal that the trial was pending for defense evidence since 24.01.2023. The accused did not propose to examine himself as defense witness immediately after the examination of accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C.. The matter was fixed for the defense evidence for multiple dates of hearing. The accused submitted an application under Section 243(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 proposing examination of witness Rajvinder Singh, G.Z. Badole and Rahul Modi as defense evidence. This Court in M.Cr.C. No.36879/2023 vide order dated 10.10.2023 permitted the petitioner/accused to examine the defense witness on cost of Rs.5,000/-. Thereafter, the accused sought adjournment on 16.10.2023 and 22.12.2023. The matter was fixed for 22.01.2024, when the accused Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREETHA NAIR Signing time: 21-05-2025 18:18:21 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13547 5 submitted the application under Section 315 of Code of Criminal Procedure proposing to examine himself. Both the Courts considering the pendency of the matter for eight years and the conduct of the accused to conclude that the application was filed with malafide, merely to delay the conclusion of trial.
8. The accused had cross-examined Anil Singhi (PW1) on 08.01.2022. He was aware of his defense. He could have submitted the list of defense witnesses requesting issuance of summons to prove his proposed defense. Still, this Court accorded opportunity to examine defense evidence. Having failed to produce the defense evidence, the accused filed an application under Section 315 of Code of Criminal Procedure proposing to examine himself to prove to execution of the partnership deed with Rajvinder Singh. The timing of the application and previous conduct of the accused make it clear that it is an attempt in despair to delay the trial. It would be travesty of justice, if the trial is conducted at the whims and desires of the accused. Sufficient opportunities have already been extended to the accused, therefore, no prejudice or injustice would be caused to the accused by rejection of the application under Section 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREETHA NAIR Signing time: 21-05-2025 18:18:21 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13547 6 impugned orders do not suffer from any patent illegality or manifest impropriety. The benefit of precedent of law in case of Gajendra Singh(Supra) is not available to applicant in view of above discussion. No case is made out to invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The petition, being meritless, is dismissed.
(Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar) Judge pn Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREETHA NAIR Signing time: 21-05-2025 18:18:21