GOVIND PURI Vs. LAXMI NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 1.3.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan; whereby the learned Sessions Judge affirmed the order dated 5.6.2010 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jodhpur in Case No. 504/10 allowing the application filed by the complainant under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. and directing the petitioner accused to place the written agreement on the record of the case. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent Laxmi Narayan filed a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The case is pending for cross examination of defence witnesses. The complainant at that stage filed an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. It was claimed in the application that during the course of the evidence of defence witnesses, a fact came to light that the house in question had been agreed to be sold for a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/-. The defence denied the existence of any written agreement in this regard. The complainant contended that there exists a written agreement dated 24.9.2005 executed between the parties, which is in possession of the accused. The complainant also alleged that the accused had filed a complaint against Bharat Sankhla, the learned counsel for the complainant before the Bar Council of Rajasthan, Wherein a copy of the said written agreement was produced by the accused. The complainant's case was that as the original written agreement is in the possession of the accused, the Court should summon the same for eliciting the truth. The complainant requested for summoning the original written agreement from the accused as well as the original file of the complaint filed by the accused before the Bar Council by way of the application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) The accused submitted a reply to the application filed by the complainant under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. and took an objection that the Court has no powers to direct an accused to produce any document under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C.

(3.) The trial Court by the order dated 5.6.2010 partly allowed the application filed by the complainant and directed the petitioner accused to produce on record the original agreement dated 24.9.2005. However, the complainant's prayer for summoning the file of the complaint from Bar Council was rejected. The petitioner accused challenged the order dated 5.6.2010 by filing a revision before the learned Session Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan who also by the order dated 1.3.2011 affirmed the order passed by the Magistrate directing the petitioner to produce the document on record. Now the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this Misc. Petition assailing the orders passed by the Courts below.