2016 (10) TMI 151 - HC - Indian Laws

Court upholds Trial Court's discretion in allowing respondent's application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.

The Court upheld the Trial Court's discretion in allowing the respondent's application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to place a copy of the undertaking on ... Bouncing of cheques given by the petitioner to the respondent herein in lieu of friendly loan - Held that:- This Court appreciate with the submission of the petitioner herein that it is a settled proposition of law that the admission made by a party need not be proved. The settled proposition of law cannot be applied only for a particular party, rather it applies to all. What this Court observes from the perusal of the Undertaking dated 15.02.2013, sought to be brought on record by the respondent in his case, which is duly signed by the petitioner herein. There is admission on the part of the petitioner with regard to receipt of dasti loan of ₹ 18 lacs in cash from Harash Suri (respondent herein) and ₹ 20 lacs from Smt. Vinika Suri (Rs.11 lacs through bank transaction and balance of ₹ 9 lacs in cash). Before allowing the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. it is the duty of the Court to determine the relevance of any document for being brought on record and from the perusal of the impugned order, this Court observes that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has exercised his discretion under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. while discussing the settled law that no party should suffer loss and the best possible evidence should be brought before the Court by respective parties to prove their points of contention. This Court does not find any irregularity or infirmity in the said order. It is also a settled principle that the Trial Court has been given an undoubted discretion in the matter and the discretion has to be judiciously exercised by it. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the Trial Court has exercised its discretion, it is not for this Court, to substitute its own discretion for that of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate or to examine the case on merits with a view to find out whether or not the document sought to be placed on record is relevant or not for the proper adjudication of the case. Moreover, the petitioner is already vested with a right to cross-examine the respondent in the case, therefore no question of any prejudice seems to be caused to the petitioner herein. Issues:Petition challenging order allowing application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for placing copy of undertaking on record.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 04.07.2016, allowing the respondent's application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. The dispute involved bouncing of cheques for a friendly loan of Rs. 18 lacs. Another complaint under Section 138 of NI Act was pending against the petitioner for Rs. 19.5 lacs. The respondent sought to place a copy of the undertaking given by the petitioner on record. The petitioner argued that this was a delay tactic, as the respondent's wife's complaint had been dismissed, and no written acknowledgment of the loan existed. The petitioner contended that the admission made by the respondent was an attempt to fill gaps in the complaint. The petitioner further argued against the relevance of the document and the timing of allowing the application at the final stage of the trial.The Court noted that the admission made by a party need not be proved and observed that the undertaking signed by the petitioner admitted to receiving a loan of Rs. 18 lacs in cash from the respondent and Rs. 20 lacs from the respondent's wife. The Court emphasized that the Trial Court has discretion under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to allow relevant documents on record. It found no irregularity in the order, stating that no party should suffer loss, and the best evidence should be presented. The Court upheld the Trial Court's discretion and stated that the petitioner's right to cross-examine the respondent mitigated any prejudice. The Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that its observations were for the purpose of disposal and not a final opinion on the case's merits, which would be decided by the Trial Court.In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition and directed a copy of the order to be sent to the Trial Court for information.