Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:65176 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38730 of 2024 (Leading case) Applicant :- Nadeem Iqbal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Singh,Syed Imran Ibrahim Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Connected with Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 44768 of 2024 (Connected case) Applicant :- Nadeem Iqbal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Praveen Kumar Singh,Syed Imran Ibrahim Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Mr. Syed Imran Ibrahim, learned counsel for the applicant in leading and connected applications and Sri S.K. Singh, learned AGA for the State. 2. The leading application has been preferred for quashing the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 1341 of 2020 (Zamir Ullah Khan vs. Nadeem Iqbal) U/s 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Ghaziabad pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate court no.6, Ghaziabad. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that a complaint was lodged by opposite party no.2 against the applicant on 03.03.2020 under Section 138 of N.I. Act with an allegation that a Suit was instituted being O.S. No. 591 of 2016 and in pursuance thereof a cheque amounting to Rs. 87,50,000/- bearing no. 026591 was drawn by the applicant which dishonoured on 30.01.2020 and a statutory demand notice was issued on 12.02.2020 and, thereafter, the complaint was filed. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on 24.08.2021 a summoning order was passed. Thereafter, the applicant is stated to have been preferred an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. for a direction to the complainant to place on record the documents as mentioned in the application. The court below on 03.08.2023 allowed the said application while requiring the opposite party no.2 to furnish the details of the documents as sought for. The opposite party no.2 on 05.10.2023 is stated to have furnish the details. However, according to the applicant, the details were not sufficient so as to inflict criminality while invoking the provisions of Section 138 of N.I. act with regard to enforcement of legally enforceable debt or liability. Thus, an application came to be filed by the applicant herein on 02.11.2023 for a direction to the complaint to place the documents as sought for in the application dated 02.11.2023. The said application came to be decided on 03.11.2023 by the court of Special Judge, N.I. Act, Ghaziabad with an observation that in case the documents has sought for had not been furnished then it would be a case of adverse inference with regard to the claim set up by the opposite party no.2 for legally and enforceable liability. 4. As regards in the connected application is concerned, the facts are the same. However, an order stated to have been passed on 03.11.2023 rejecting the application U/s 91 of Cr.P.C. for directing the complainant to furnish the details of the documents as mentioned therein. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant thus, submits that the entire proceedings sought to be initiated by virtue of the complaint case no. 1345 of 2020 cannot be permitted to be continued particularly when the conduct of the complainant is of paramount importance as once the complainant himself has not placed on record the entire facts and documents which were made the basis of inflicting the criminality while invoking the provisions of Section 138 of N.I. Act for holding the legally and enforceable debt and liability then in the circumstances the proceedings are liable to be set aside. He seeks to rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 724 of 2025 Rekha Sharad Ushir vs. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd, decided on 26.03.2025. 6. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that whatever might be the case once an order came to be passed by the court below on 03.11.2023 holding that in case the documents as sought for and the details whereof was not furnished then it can at best adverse inference can be drawn then the order would not be prejudicial and further when the trial commences then the stage will arise with regard to the import and the impact of non furnishing the details and documents in the matter while deciding as to whether the accused is to be convicted or acquitted. 7. Having heard the submissions so made across the bar, the Court is of the opinion that once there happens to be an order dated 03.11.2023 passed by the court below holding that once the documents has sought for are not furnished or details whereof has not been given to the complainant, then it can be a case of adverse inference, then in the opinion of the Court, no prejudice whatsoever is being caused, as the stage of the import and impact of non furnishing of the document and the adverse inference would be only at the stage when the trial commences and a decision is to be taken whether the accused is to be acquitted or convicted. There is no quarrel to the proposition of law cited by in the case of Rekha Sharad Ushir (Supra). However, the stage for consideration has not still arisen. 8. In view of the above, both the applications are disposed of. Order Date :- 25.4.2025 /C. MANI (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad