High Court of DelhiCRL.M.C./5342/2022

Nitant Verma v. State Of Delhi NCT & ANR.

2024-05-16Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri11 pages

$~19 & 20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 5342/2022 & CRL. MA 21223/2022, 10084/2023 NITANT VERMA ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Adit S. Pujari and Mr Shaurya Mittal, Advocates.

versus STATE OF DELHI NCT & ANR ..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP for State Mr. Asim Naeem, Mr. Saurabh Soni, Ms. Cherry Gupta and Ms. Anisa and Mr. Subhani, Advocates.

+ CRL.M.C. 2684/2023 & 10118/2023 ARJUN CHAUDHARY ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Asim Naeem, Mr. Saurabh Soni, Ms. Cherry Gupta and Ms. Anisa and Mr. Subhani, Advocates.

versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP for State.

Mr. Adit S. Pujari and Mr Shaurya Mittal, Advocates for the respondents.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI % 16.05.2024

O R D E R

By way of the present petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., both parties seek to assail the order dated 16.08.2022 passed by the learned MM, South East District, Saket Courts in CT Case No.726/2016. 2.

Notably, the petitions arise out of proceedings instituted under Section 138/142 NI Act and pending between the parties. In the said proceedings, The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

accused Nitant Verma had preferred an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C for production of as many as 14 documents classifying them as 'necessary and desirable'

for the purpose of cross-examination of the respondent/complainant. Apparently, after hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court vide the impugned order, partially allowed the said application, thereby directing the respondent/complainant to produce documents which were listed at serial numbers 4, 6 and 7. While the accused has assailed the impugned order to the extent of refusal to direct production of other documents, the respondent/complainant has assailed the impugned order to the extent that he has been asked to produce the documents at serial nos. 4, 6 and 7.

Before proceeding further, it is apposite to note that the co-accusedJeevesh Sabharwal has also preferred an FIR being FIR No.665/2016 against the respondent/complainant's brother-in-law namely Suninder Sandha. It is informed that in the said proceedings, charge-sheet has been filed, however, an application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C against the respondent/complainant is pending consideration. 4.

It is also pertinent to note that the complainant Arjun Chaudhary has maintained the underlying complaint instituted under Section 138 NI Act on the premise that he had forwarded a total sum of Rs.51.50 lacs and that the same was sought to be repaid by the subject cheques, which upon presentation, were dishonoured.

As borne out from the records, co-accused Jeevesh Sabharwal and Suninder Sandha were the Directors of one M/s Concept Horizon Infra Pvt. Ltd. (CHIPL). The petitioner, who had joined the said company later on, contends that respondent/complainant was also an employee in the said The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

company. The respondent/complainant, however, has maintained that he was an employee for only a period of one year, upto April, 2014. 6.

The accused Nitant Verma had filed the subject application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. seeking the following documents:- The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The complainant Arjun Chaudhary filed a response to the said application in a tabular form, which is extracted hereunder:- The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

In State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi reported as (2005) 1 SCC 568, it has been observed that:- "xxx

25. Any document or other thing envisaged under the aforesaid provision can be ordered to be produced on finding that the same is "necessary or desirable for the purpose of investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code". The first and foremost requirement of the section is about the document being necessary and desirable. The necessity or desirability would have to be seen with reference to the stage when a prayer is made for the production... When the section refers to investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings, it is to be borne in mind that under the section a police officer may move the court for summoning and production of a document as may be necessary at any of the stages mentioned in the section... When the section talks of the document being necessary and desirable, it is implicit that necessity and desirability is to be examined considering the stage when such a prayer for summoning and The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

production is made and the party who makes it, whether police or accused...

xxx

28. We are of the view that jurisdiction under Section 91 of the Code when invoked by the accused, the necessity and desirability would have to be seen by the court in the context of the purpose - investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code. It would also have to be borne in mind that law does not permit a roving or fishing inquiry."

Further, this Court in Sukhmohinder Singh Sandhu v. CBI reported as 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2481, while dealing with Section 91 Cr.P.C. observed:- "10. This provisions of section 91 Cr. P.C. empower a court to summon or order production of any document which it think necessary or desirable for the purpose of inquiry or trial. The word 'document' through not defined in Cr. P.C., however, has been defined in section 3 of Evidence Act and would mean any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letter, figures or makes, or by more than one of those means. The accused under section 91 Cr. P.C. cannot ask the production of documents as a matter of right. However, while making application he has to specify the document and show its relevance. He cannot ask the court to make roving and fishing enquiry as has been done in the applications under consideration. Only when he discloses the nature of document and its relevance, the court to decide if the documents sought to be summoned was necessary or desirable for the just decision of the case."

10.

A perusal of the documents sought by accused Nitant Verma would show that most of them pertained to the affairs of CHIPL, of which the respondent/complainant was only an employee briefly for a period of one year.

11.

Along with the particulars of the documents sought, the accused has The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

also assigned reasons for seeking the same, a perusal of which would show that the same are more in the nature of a fishing and roving inquiry, and further considering the defence taken by the respondent/complainant that the same are not in his possession, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the said order except to the extent that the respondent/complainant has been directed to be produce the documents at serial numbers 4, 6 and 7. 12.

The documents at Serial no.4 relate to income tax returns for the financial years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. The premise to seek these documents is that though the respondent/complainant has alleged that he has forwarded the loan of Rs.51.50 lacs through multiple transactions, and while the entry of Rs.50 lacs is documented, the forwarding of remaining sum of Rs.1.50 lacs is not borne out from the records. On the other hand, the respondent/complainant has maintained that the entire sum was transferred through banking channels. The documents at Serial No.6 again relates to proof of payment of said Rs.1.50 lacs. The accused has not specified any document in this regard except stating that proof be provided.

The documents at Serial No.7 relate to bank statements of the account of the respondent/complainant maintained with HDFC Bank. The reason assigned for asking the said documents is to ascertain the inflow/entry of money into the respondent/complainant's bank account and as to whether it involves suspicious transaction undertaken by him in the nature of re-routing of the money owed to CHIPL by buyers. It appears that the accused is seeking documents in relation to investigation pending against the respondent/complainant's brother-in-law, by way of the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

13.

Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant states that the complainant will produce the relevant passbooks to prove its case with respect to remaining Rs.1.50 lacs.

14.

Considering the scope of Section 91 Cr.PC, the documents sought by the accused are neither necessary nor desirable. 15.

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order is set aside to the extent that the complainant has been directed to produce documents at serial numbers 4, 6 and 7.

16.

Both the petitions are disposed of in above terms along with pending applications.

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J MAY 16, 2024/rd The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.