Section 294 Cr.P.C. mandates calling upon parties to admit or deny documents irrespective of their perceived relevancy.

The petitioners are accused in a criminal complaint (S.C.C. No. 7117 of 2019) filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

During the proceedings, the petitioners sought to produce various documents—including a Sale Deed (2012), a Correction Deed (2014), and revised development maps—to substantiate their defense regarding a land price reduction agreement

The Trial Court, via an order on Exh. 34, permitted the production of these documents

Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application (Exh. 36) under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) requesting the Court to direct the complainant to admit or deny the genuineness of the produced documents

The Trial Court rejected the application on 14.11.2025, reasoning that the documents were irrelevant as the cheques in question were issued following a later compromise in 2017

1. Whether the procedure under Section 294 of the Cr.P.C., which requires the Court to call upon a party to admit or deny the genuineness of a document, is mandatory or discretionary

2. Whether a Trial Court can reject a Section 294 application on the grounds of "relevancy" after it has already permitted the production of the documents in question

The Court primarily applied Section 294 of the Cr.P.C., which stipulates that where any document is filed, the prosecution or the accused "shall" be called upon to admit or deny its genuineness

It relied on the Full Bench decision in Shaikh Farid Hussainsab vs. State of Maharashtra, which established that Section 294 was introduced to dispense with the waste of time associated with formal proof and to facilitate speedy trials

The Court further applied principles of statutory interpretation, noting that the word "shall" in the context of Section 294 denotes a mandatory obligation rather than a discretionary power

The High Court observed that Section 294 Cr.P.C. does not prohibit filing documents at a subsequent stage and creates a mandatory procedural step once documents are included in a list

The Court noted that the Trial Court’s predecessor had already allowed the production of the documents (Exh. 34), yet the current Trial Court failed to address the mandatory second step of calling for admission or denial

The Court reasoned that calling for admission/denial does not prejudice the complainant, as they remain free to deny genuineness or challenge admissibility during the trial

Furthermore, the Court clarified that Section 294 is a tool for procedural efficiency; thus, a Trial Court cannot bypass this mandate by performing a premature evaluation of "relevancy" at the stage of admitting or denying genuineness

The High Court concluded that the Trial Court’s refusal to follow the "shall" mandate of the statute was an arbitrary exercise of power

It held that Section 294 Cr.P.C. is mandatory, leaving the Trial Court no discretion to refuse calling upon a party to admit or deny documents once their production is permitted

The Trial Court was directed to call upon the complainant to admit or deny the documents and was further instructed to dispose of the 2019 complaint expeditiously, preferably within six months