2017 (3) TMI 208 - HC - Indian Laws

Dshonour of cheque - invoke inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C - Held that - The cross-examination to the respondent/complainant(CW 1) on the point of asking for the production of the ITRs though not relevant directly but the learned Metropolitan Magistrate since directed the respondent/complainant to produce the ITRs for the period 2005-2006 to 2011-2012 was made under Section 91 Cr.P.C. and further cross-examination has to be based on its relevancy part only. Here, it is not out of place to mention that the petitioner/accused does not have liberty to further cross-examine the respondent/complainant(witness CW 1) to frustrate the entire objective of the summary trial or harass the respondent/complainant. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned ADJ vide impugned order dated 23.08.2014 has curtailed the scope of further cross-examination is not convincing and cannot be accepted as the petitioner/accused cannot be allowed to further cross-examine the respondent/complainant(witness CW 1) on irrelevant aspects which are not directly relevant for the purpose of determination of the offence committed. The direction given by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 24.05.2014 to the respondent/complainant is an intermediate order passed under Section 91 Cr.P.C. which is in the form of a final order for the purpose of giving the direction for production of the ITRs is concerned. Therefore, the order dated 24.05.2014 is a revisionable order under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the abovementioned order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is an interlocutory order which is hit by Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. fails. As discussed above find no merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the judgments relied by him are not helpful in the facts and circumstances of the present case as there is no specific material available on record to invoke inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Issues Involved:

1. Interlocutory Order
2. Intermediate Order
3. Section 91 Cr.P.C.
4. Cross-examination scope and relevancy
5. Revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
6. Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interlocutory Order:

The judgment defines "interlocutory order" using definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary and Webster's Third International Dictionary, emphasizing that it denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or liabilities of the parties. The court references the Supreme Court's observation in *Amar Nath vs. State of Haryana*, highlighting that the term is used in a restricted sense in Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code.

2. Intermediate Order:

An intermediate order is described as one made between the commencement of the action and its final determination, incident to and during the progress of the action, which determines not the cause but only some intervening matter. The court explains that the order dated 24.05.2014 directing the production of income tax returns (ITRs) is an intermediate order as it pertains to an intervening matter necessary for the trial.

3. Section 91 Cr.P.C.:

Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. allows the court to issue a summons for the production of any document necessary for an investigation, inquiry, trial, or other proceeding. The court notes that the Metropolitan Magistrate's order for the production of ITRs falls under this section, being necessary for the cross-examination of the respondent/complainant.

4. Cross-examination scope and relevancy:

The court discusses the relevance of cross-examination, noting that it should be based on the defence taken by the accused under Section 251 Cr.P.C. The petitioner argued that the cheques were given as security and the loan was repaid. The court agrees that cross-examination should be confined to relevant questions, particularly those related to the repayment of the loan, as directed by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ).

5. Revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C.:

The court addresses the petitioner's argument that the Metropolitan Magistrate's order was interlocutory and thus not subject to revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. The court clarifies that the order was an intermediate order and thus revisionable. The court finds no merit in the petitioner's contention and upholds the ASJ's decision to allow the revision petition.

6. Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:

The court discusses the limited scope of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., citing *Pran Nath Dhawan vs. Union of India*. It emphasizes that inherent powers should not be invoked when specific provisions are available unless under "compelling circumstances." The court finds no compelling circumstances to interfere with the ASJ's order and dismisses the petition.

Conclusion:

The court dismisses the petition, upholding the ASJ's order dated 23.08.2014, which allowed the revision petition and directed the Metropolitan Magistrate to limit the scope of further cross-examination to questions relevant to the repayment of the loan. The judgment underscores the importance of relevancy in cross-examination and the appropriate use of Section 91 Cr.P.C. for the production of documents necessary for trial. The court also clarifies the distinction between interlocutory and intermediate orders, affirming the revisionability of the latter under Section 397 Cr.P.C.

← Previous Next →