9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18 lacs. Proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were conducted before the trial Court. Apart from the aforesaid case for recovery of sum of ₹ 18 lacs, another complaint under Section 138 of NI Act is also pending against the petitioner, which was filed by one Shri Yogender Verma for recovery of ₹ 19.5 lacs. The respondent in the present case has got the copy of the undertaking given by the petitioner herein to Shri Yogender Verma admitting the liability towards the respondent and his wife. Though the said Yogender Verma has also filed a complaint under Section 138 of NI Act against the petitioner herein, but the Respondent in the present petition, filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2016, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no cogent and sufficient ground for allowing the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent. More so, the trial of the case is at final stage and therefore at the fag end of the trial, the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent could not have been allowed. It is contended that the impugned order is passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in a routine manner and without recording the contention of the petitioner, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 5. I have heard the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as gone through the contents of the petition, depositions as relied upon by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 8. Before parting with the order, this court would like to place it on record by way of abundant caution that whatever has been stated hereinabove in this orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
