Dismissal of Section 91 Application is Not Perverse if Trial Court Discretion is Judiciously Exercised

The complainant (respondent), an advocate, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner, alleging a debt of Rs. 4,00,000/- advanced for domestic needs.

The petitioner allegedly issued a cheque dated 16.02.2018, which was returned with the endorsement "Funds Insufficient".

During cross-examination, the complainant claimed the advanced amount was reflected in his Income Tax Returns (ITR).

Consequently, the petitioner moved an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. seeking the production of the complainant’s ITRs up to March 2022 to verify the transaction.

The Trial Court (JMFC Satna) and the Revisional Court (6th ASJ Satna) both rejected the application.

The petitioner challenged these orders before the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023.

1. Whether the Trial Court committed an illegality or jurisdictional error in dismissing the petitioner’s application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. for the production of the complainant's Income Tax Returns.

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers to interfere with the discretionary interlocutory/revisional orders passed by the courts below.

The court considered Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (equivalent to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.), which saves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.

It also examined Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., which grants courts the discretionary power to summon documents necessary or desirable for the purpose of any investigation, inquiry, or trial.

The High Court perused the record and observed that the Trial Court had exercised its discretion "judiciously" in rejecting the application.

The court noted that while the petitioner argued the ITR was material to prove the non-existence of a legally enforceable debt, the Trial Court’s decision was primarily based on the specific averments regarding the loan for domestic needs and the stage of the trial.

The High Court emphasized that its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS) is limited and should not be used to substitute its own view for that of the Trial Court, especially when there is no patent illegality, perversity, or failure of justice evident in the lower court's exercise of discretion.

The petition was dismissed, and the court declined to interfere with the Trial Court's discretion regarding the production of documents.

No order as to costs was made.