SUKHDEV SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Misc. Petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner aggrieved from the order dtd. 30/1/2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Revision No.82/2018 (CIS No.231/2018), whereby the order dtd. 31/7/2018 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sadulshahar, District Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Case No. 363/2009 (Firm Hansram Jagdish Rai Vs. Sukhdev Singh) against dismissal of the application under Sec. 311 of the Cr.P.C. was maintained in a criminal case under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the basis of liberty granted vide order dtd. 15/12/2017 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1481/2018 to summon documents at appropriate stage, present petitioner filed an application under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. to summon bank manager, PNB Sadulshahar along with application to close bank account No.12128 and intimation regarding missing of cheques submitted by the petitioner. He further submitted that complainant is a grain merchant whereas the petitioner is an agriculturist. He submitted that just to transfer money a bank account was opened at the behest of respondent-2 complainant and the entire banking operation including custody of cheque book or other documents were maintained/kept by the complainant himself. The trial Court without appreciating the importance of liberty as referred above, dismissed the application. He further submitted that scope of Sec. 311 of the Cr.P.C. was well explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh Vs. State of Gujarat (2006) 3 SCC 374 and Swapan Kumar Chatterjee Vs. CBI (2019) 14 SCC 328 but the trial Court has failed to appreciate the valuable opportunity available to prove defence. He further submitted that the revisional Court without appreciating the law, has also dismissed the revision petition on the ground that the order under Sec. 311 of the Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order and revision is not maintainable. He further submitted that a great prejudice is caused, if present petitioner is not allowed to led evidence by summoning the Bank Manager.

(3.) Aforesaid contentions were opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that this petition has been filed at a belated stage i.e. just to delay the original case under Sec. 138 NI Act. He further submitted that even the closure of bank account falls within scope of an offence under Sec. 138 N.I. Act and if there is any recorded intimation of missing of cheques before issuance of questioned cheque then same has to be brought on record on earlier occasions, but no such plea was ever raised against respondent No.2. He further submitted that this is just an abuse of process of law and filed with ulterior motives as there was no plausible defence with the present petitioner.