Bhurumal Agarwal vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Pankaj Purohit, J

By means of present C482 application, applicant has put to challenge the order dated 13.03.2024, passed by learned Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, District Dehradun in Complaint Case No.02 of 2019, Bhurumal vs. Smt. Rajbala & another, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “The Act, 1881”).

Brief facts of the case are that on 02.01.2019, applicant filed a complaint against the private respondents under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 stating therein that respondents due to old relation requested to lend them Rs.5,50,000/- as loan in the month of June, 2016 and in lieu thereto, they gave a signed cheque numbered as 000023 dated 26.11.2018 to the applicant and the said cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘payment stopped’ on 27.11.2018, for which, applicant sent a legal notice to the respondents but even after service of notice, the respondents did not pay the amount under cheque to the applicant.

After filing of the aforesaid case, private respondents put their appearance and subsequently, their statements were recorded under Section 251 Cr.P.C. on 10.02.2021. After recording of their evidence under Section 251 Cr.P.C., the trial court proceeded and after taking all the evidence, the statements of private respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were also recorded on 28.07.2022. Thereafter, on 13.02.2024, private respondents moved an application before the trial court to permit them to file some documents i.e. transcript of audio recording of talks between the applicant and respondent no.2 prior to the institution of the case, original pen drive and certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. Applicant filed his objections to the said application on 28.02.2024. The learned trial court vide order dated 13.03.2024 allowed the application filed by the private respondents and the documents filed by them was taken into evidence. Thus, against the said order, applicant is before this Court.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in both the statements recorded under Sections 251 & 313 Cr.P.C, private respondents admitted this fact that respondent no.2 issued the cheque in-question to the applicant, thus the ingredients of Act, 1881 are made out. He further submits that learned trial court committed gross error of law in accepting the contentions of the application moved by the respondents-accused and overlooked the objections filed by the applicant.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3 submits that the learned Magistrate has not committed any illegality and rightly passed the order dated 13.03.2024 for fair and proper adjudication of the case.

The learned trial court has rightly allowed the application filed by the private respondents on the ground that there is no illegality in filing of the application as the same is supported by a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act and the case is pending at the stage of defence evidence and the applicant, if wants, can also file additional evidence to refute the above evidence.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the learned counsel appearing for the applicant has failed to point out a single error in the order passed by learned trial court. Thus, no interference is warranted by this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly the present C482 application is dismissed.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.