Section 94 BNSS cannot be invoked for fishing inquiries absent demonstrated relevance and necessity.

The applicant had instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that the respondent had borrowed ₹3,00,000 and issued Cheque No. 006329 towards repayment, which was dishonoured with the endorsement “Account Closed.” After issuance of the statutory notice and failure to make payment, proceedings under Section 138 were initiated.

During the pendency of the complaint, an application was filed under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking records relating to the respondent’s bank accounts, including ICICI Bank Account No. 7471015000015. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khurai rejected the application on 21 April 2026. The applicant’s Criminal Revision No. 11/2026 was thereafter dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai, on 29 April 2026.

The applicant challenged both orders before the High Court under Section 528 BNSS, contending that the bank records were necessary for proper adjudication of the Section 138 complaint. The respondent opposed the petition on the ground that the application was vague and amounted to a fishing and roving inquiry.

Whether the applicant was entitled to summon the respondent’s bank-account records under Section 94 BNSS as necessary or desirable for the inquiry or trial of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act?

Whether the orders dated 21 April 2026 and 29 April 2026 rejecting the application and revision, respectively, warranted interference under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS?

Section 94 BNSS empowers the Court to summon documents or records only when they appear necessary or desirable for the purposes of an inquiry or trial; it cannot be used to facilitate a vague, fishing, or roving inquiry without a demonstrated connection between the documents sought and the issues for adjudication.

Section 528 BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction, but such jurisdiction is exercised only where interference is necessary to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.

In proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a party seeking production of documents must establish their relevance and necessity to the determination of the complaint.

The High Court noted that the trial had already reached the stage of defence evidence and that bank statements of the complainant’s wife had previously been directed to be summoned.

However, the applicant did not explain how the records of ICICI Bank Account No. 7471015000015 were directly relevant to the ingredients or determination of the Section 138 complaint.

Since Section 94 BNSS requires a demonstrated necessity or desirability of the documents, the applicant’s general request for bank-account records was insufficient and amounted to an impermissible fishing inquiry.

Although the revisional court had dismissed the revision by treating the Magistrate’s order as interlocutory, the High Court independently examined the Magistrate’s order and found no illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice warranting exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.

The petition under Section 528 BNSS was accordingly dismissed, and the order dated 21 April 2026 passed by the JMFC, Khurai, rejecting the application under Section 94 BNSS, was affirmed.