SATYENDRA PRADHAN Vs. AKSHAT AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dtd. 16/12/2022 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Saraipali, District Mahasamund in Criminal Misc. Case No.14/2022 arising out of order dtd. 17/10/2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saraipali in Complaint Case No.456/2018, whereby application filed by the complainant for examining the witness whose name was not mentioned in the witness list while filing the complaint under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, was allowed and the revision filed by the petitioner/accused was dismissed.

(2.) Facts of the case in brief are that the respondent/complainant had filed the complaint case against the petitioner/accused under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "Act of 1881") in which It is averred that the complainant was running a medical shop in the hospital of the petitioner. However, after sometime the respondent closed the medical shop and in respect of settlement of the financial liability, the petitioner handed over a cheque of Rs.15.00 Lacs to the complainant but the same was dishonoured by the Bank. In the said case, the complainant/respondent was examined on 17/3/2023. Further, the complainant cited names of 3 witnesses in the list of the witnesses filed under Sec. 204 (2) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, on 12/4/2022 the complainant moved an application to examine his father as a witness but the same was objected by the petitioner stating that the name of the father of the complainant namely Sunil Agrawal is not mentioned in the list of the witnesses and also that he is not in any manner related to the transaction carried out between the petitioner and respondent and only to fulfill the lacuna after recording the statement of the complainant, the application was moved. However, the application filed by the complainant was allowed. Thereafter, the petitioner moved a revision before the Court below which resulted in its dismissal, against which, the petitioner filed this petition.

(3.) Shri Sumit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would submit that the name of Sunil Agrawal was not mentioned in the list of the witnesses and he has no role in the transaction between the parties in any manner, so only to harass the petitioner and face the trial, the said act was done. Hence, the discretion exercised by the trial Court is not proper. He also submits that in the affidavit filed by the complainant, no averment has been made that the father of the complainant was in any way connected with the concerned transactions. He placed reliance in the matter of Shobha Rani Vs. State of Kerala passed by High Court of Kerala in Criminal Misc. Case No.4347/2016 decided on 12/1/2018. He lastly submits that order passed by the Court below is not sustainable in the eyes of law and prays to quash the impugned orders by invoking the jurisdiction vested under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C.