Interim Order 2

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: MHMM180077412018
Summons Cases SS/1212/2018
MR. UMESH BHIMA DABHI Vs. MR. NILESH
YASHWANT PATIL
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, 58TH COURT,
BANDRA, MUMBAI
ORDER BELOW APPLICATION EXH.34
1. This is an application filed under section 91 of Code of
Criminal Procedure on behalf of the accused to direct the complainant
to produce certified copies of Civil Suit No.3314/2018, pending in
between the parties before the City Civil Court, Dindoshi.
2. The application is strongly objected on behalf of the
complainant vide reply Exh.35.
3. Heard advocate Ms.Baby Sherin for the accused and
advocate Shabana Shaikh for the complainant.
4. The sum and substance of the application is that the
accused any how want to take the document as to the Civil Suit in
between the parties on record. The complainant has not disputed the
Civil Suit pending before the City Civil Court, Dindoshi. In the light of
above admitted facts question crops up Whether it is necessary to
invoke discretionary powers conferred upon this court under section 91
of Code of Criminal Procedure that too in a summary trial case filed
under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act by way of a separate
statutory remedy at a stage of leading evidence by the complainant?
5. Needless to state that the powers conferred upon this court
under section 91 of Code of Criminal Procedure needs to be exercised
cautiously by issuing the summons to the person in whose possession or
-- 1 of 3 --
2 Summons Cases SS/1212/2018
Order below Exh.34
powers said documents lies and that too when it is found necessary to
the court for the purpose of the trial. Filing the complaint under
section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is separate remedy of criminal
nature provided to the complainant irrespective of pending Civil Suit or
exercising civil remedy by the complainant. In short to sum up the
provision under section 91 of Code of Criminal Procedure can not be
invoked for collecting evidence at hands of any party. The accused can
produce certified copies of the proceeding at appropriate stage
considering the reverse burden theory of law. At this stage the
documents seems irrelevant for trial. Hence, I pass following order.
O R D E R
1) The application is rejected.
2) The accused is at liberty to produce certified
copies of those documents if necessary in his
defence.
3) Order dictated and pronounced in open court.
( M. P. Saraf )
Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Date : 18.11.2024 58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code: MH01362
-- 2 of 3 --
3 Summons Cases SS/1212/2018
Order below Exh.34
CERTIFICATE
I affirm that the contents of this P.D.F. file Order are same, word to word as per the
original Order.
Name of Stenographer : Mrs. Aditi Ravikiran Dalvi
Court : Judicial Magistrate (First Class), 58th Court,
Bandra, Mumbai.
Dictated in open court on : 18.11.2024
Transcribed and Typed on : 18.11.2024
Order printed and Signed on : 18.11.2024
Order Uploaded on : 18.11.2024
-- 3 of 3 --