1 / 6 2025:CGHC:54821 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2556 of 2025 Manish Wadhwani S/o Khiyaldas Wadhwani, Aged About 51 Years Proprietor- Charu Trading Company, R/o- C/o- Gopi Devi Wadhwani, Ratna Apartment, First Floor Anand Niketan Colony Avanti Vihar, Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus Anand Tekwani S/o Late Shaman Das Tekwani, Aged About 53 Years R/o Near Chief Ministers Residence, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Otwani, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : None Amicus Curiae : Mr. Sajal Gupta, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 11/11/2025 1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 02/07/2025 passed by the learned Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, C.G. whereby the revision application preferred by the petitioner under Section 438 of ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.11.11 17:14:49 +0530 2 / 6 B.N.S.S. bearing Criminal Revision No.95/2025 challenging the order dated 28/02/2025 has been dismissed and also the order dated 28/02/2025 passed in Complaint Case No.2848 of 2019 by the JMFC, Raipur whereby the application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. This petition under Section 528 of the BNSS 2023 has been preferred for seeking following prayer :- i. To set aside the order dated 02.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed in Criminal Revision No.95/2025, passed by learned Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.). ii. To set aside the order dated 28.02.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed in Complaint Case No.2848/2019 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.) and allowing the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-4) preferred by the petitioner. iii. Grant any other relief that this Hon’ble Court deems fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case. iv. Costs be awarded to the Petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant filed a complaint alleging dishonor of two cheques of Rs.6,00,000/- each issued by the petitioner towards partial repayment of a loan of Rs.21,00,000/- allegedly advanced between July 2015 and May 2016 with 12% annual interest wherein it has been admitted that the respondent is engaged in the activities of money lending. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an 3 / 6 application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. seeking summoning of account books and records maintained by the respondent. The said application was rejected by the trial Court. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Section 438 BNSS challenging the order dated 28/02/2025 passed in Complaint Case No.2848/2019 by the JMFC, Raipur and on 02/07/2025 the said revision application was dismissed in Criminal Revision No.95/2025 by the Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, C.G. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the complainant has admitted the fact of conducting money lending activities. He would next contend that as per the Chhattisgarh Money Lending Act, 1934 it is mandatory for money lenders to maintain licensed registration, account books and transaction records and the complainant has failed to comply with the statutory requirements which raises a doubt. He would next contend that when the complainant is an unlicensed money lender, the burden is on the complainant to prove the transaction was not illegal. He would next contend that the petitioner has a statutory and constitutional right to summon records that are vital for disproving the complainant’s case and establishing that the alleged loan is unenforceable in law. He would next contend that the complainant in his reply to the application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. himself has admitted to have borrowed the amount and issued a signed document in acknowledgment thereof as such the documents sought by the petitioner are relevant and necessary for just and fair adjudication of the complaint. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble 4 / 6 Supreme Court in the matter of Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. Gegde {(2008) 4 SCC 54} and the judgment passed by this Court in B.B. Sharma Vs. Luxman Bharti (2024 SCC OnLine Chh 335) and the judgment of High Court of M.P. in the matter of Bhanwarsingh Vs. Mahendra Kumar {M.Cr.C. No.9525 of 2017, decided on 10/05/2018} and would submit that the instant petition may be allowed. 5. No representation is made on behalf of respondent despite service of notice. 6. Per contra, learned amicus curiae would contend that the application made by the petitioner for summoning of account books and records maintained by the respondent / complainant the rejection of the same is an interlocutory order, therefore, the instant revision is not maintainable as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam {(2009) 5 SCC 153}; Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra {(1977) 4 SCC 551}; and Amar Nath and Others Vs. State of Haryana and others {AIR 1977 SC 2185}. On the other hand he submits that the trial Court while exercising the discretion under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. must ensure that procedural technicalities do not override the substantive right of fair trial and all the relevant materials essential to determine the truth of the transaction are available for judicial scrutiny and would place reliance on the judgment rendered by the High Court of M.P. in the matter of Omprakash Agrawal Vs. Abhishek Kaushal, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 2809. 5 / 6 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 8. From perusal of the reply filed by the respondent before the trial Court, it appears that in para 2 thereof, shows that it is submitted that that the accused has taken money as loan from the complainant as per his requirement in various occassions, as a proof of which the accused has given a signed bill to the complainant. 9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case especially the para 2 of the reply of the respondent to the application filed under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. this Court is of the considered opinion that once the respondent himself admits to having borrowed the amount and having issued a signed document in acknowledgment thereof, the question as to the true nature of the transaction and whether it constitutes money lending within the meaning of the Money Lending Act can be appropriately determined only after examining the said voucher and related records. Hence, the documents sought by the petitioner are clearly relevant and necessary for a just and fair adjudication of the complaint. 10. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 28/02/2025 passed by the learned JMFC, Raipur (C.G.) in Complaint Case No. 2848/2019 and dated 02/07/2025 passed by the learned Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No. 95/2025 are set aside. 11. The petitioner’s application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 349 of the B.N.S.S., 2023) stands allowed. The trial Court is directed to 6 / 6 summon the relevant voucher, account books and records as sought by the petitioner and to consider the same before proceeding further in the matter. 12. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. 13. I appreciate the efforts rendered by Mr. Sajal Gupta, learned Amicus Curiae, who was requested to assist this Court vide order dated 29.10.2025. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu