1 2025:CGHC:27773 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 927 of 2025 1 - Prashant Deshmukh S/o Subhash Deshmukh Aged About 46 Years R/o Laxmi Sweets Gali, Nayapara, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Bandhan Bank Limited (Wrongly Mentioned As Grih Finance Limited), 2nd Floor, Bhatiya Complex, Above The Union Bank of India, Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Through Authorized Representative Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Aged About 37 Years, S/o Shri Gopal Singh, Regional Incharge Grih Finance Limited Office At 2nd Floor, Bhatiya Complex, Above The Union Bank Of India, Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. G.L. Uike, P.L. For Respondent No. 1 : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 25/06/ 202 5 1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.06.26 16:10:18 +0530 2 Criminal Revision No. 446/2024, which was arising out of order dated 21.10.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Complaint Case No. 781/2017, whereby the application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. was rejected and consequently the criminal revision was held to be not maintainable. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the criminal complaint case No. 781/2017 filed before Judicial magistrate First Class, Raipur is pending consideration for evidence of complainant/respondent No. 1. The petitioner herein in order to setup his probable defence sought for production of the loan sanction letter from the respondent No. 1. At the same time, the respondent No. 1 on 27.04.2023 filed documents through list of documents before the learned trial Magistrate wherein it is mentioned that a copy of loan agreement dated 12.01.2015 along with sanction letter dated 12.01.2015 and statement of account dated 25.04.2023 was filed but the sanction letter was not completely filed as is mentioned in the list of documents that the sanction letter dated 12.01.2015 is filed in 4 pages but in fact it was not filed completely hence the petitioner was compelled to file an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. for production of complete copy of sanction letter dated 12.01.2015. The learned trial Magistrate, on due 3 consideration, rejected the application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that since the case is fixed for evidence of respondent No. 1, the document sought by the petitioner herein could be filed at the time of evidence itself. Being aggrieved by the order, a criminal revision has been preferred before the learned Sessions Court. The learned revisional court had rejected the criminal revision without commenting on the merits, holding that an order rejecting an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order; therefore, the revision is barred by Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C. As such, the present petition is liable to be allowed, and the order impugned is liable to be set aside. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kalyani Baskar vs. M.S. Sampoornam, (2007) 2 SCC 258. 3. Learned counsel for the State opposes the same and supported the order impugned. 4. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition including the order impugned. 5. The order sheet of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur dated 21.10.2024 transpires that the petitioner has submitted another application to the effect that under the application submitted by the petitioner, a revision petition is pending in the Sessions Court against the order passed 4 by that Court under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., but it is not clear that what was the ground and contention of the petitioner in the said application which is pending before the Sessions Court and it is also not clear the status of the said revision as there are no documents in this regard. It is also not clear whether the two applications under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. were of a similar or different nature. 6. Looking to the documents produced before this Court, it is clear that the case is fixed for evidence of respondent No. 1/complainant; therefore, the document sought by the petitioner herein could be filed at the time of evidence. Therefore, the petitioner can raise his contention at that time. Hence, the application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the learned Magistrate, and the same has been rejected by the revisional Court, holding that the application filed by the petitioner is an interlocutory application which is not maintainable. 7. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the material available on record, I do not see any illegality or perversity in the order impugned to interfere with the order. 8. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed at motion stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) H.L. Sahu Judge