MINOTI DHAWAN Vs. SHORAYA TALWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Minoti Dhawan has filed this petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. against respondent Shoraya Talwar, for quashing of order dtd. 22/3/2017 passed by learned JMIC, Jalandhar, whereby, the application filed by the respondent under Sec. 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. was allowed.

(2.) The perusal of the record shows that an application was moved by complainant-respondent under Sec. 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. It is stated therein that earlier application moved by the complainant was disposed with the direction that adverse inference would be taken against the accused if she failed to produce the documents sought by complainant. In the revision petition filed by the accused, aforementioned order of the trial Court was set aside. In the application in question, a request has been made for summoning record from the bank as mentioned in the application to prove that being a proprietor of firm, accused No.2 is liable for cheque in question. The accused in the reply stated that application is not maintainable, which is filed at belated stage. Earlier application under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. was allowed by the Court but at that time, no such evidence was led and present application has been filed to fill up the lacuna, which is not permissible as per law.

(3.) Learned trial Court held that earlier application was moved by the complainant, wherein, the complainant mentioned in para No.3 that complainant intends to examine concerned Clerk from the Citizen Urban Cooperative Bank along with the record pertaining to the cheque in question and further complainant wants to examine Varinder Talwar as a witness. The Court, after perusing earlier order, held that application was allowed qua examining CW-2 Varinder Talwar but there is no order regarding dismissal or denial of testimony of the witness from the Citizen Urban Cooperative Bank. Therefore, learned trial Court, accepted this application.