1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 147 of 2025 1 - Prakash Ajmani S/o Late Hanshraj Aged About 48 Years R/o Near Rameshwari Durga Chowk Station Road, Mahasamund, Police Station Tahsil And District- Mahasamund ( C.G.). --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ajit Singh Gurudatta S/o Late Gurumukh Singh Aged About 61 Years R/o Station Road Mahasamund, Police Station, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund ( C.G.). --- Respondent(s) CRMP No. 171 of 2025 1 - Prakash Ajmani S/o Late Hanshraj Aged About 48 Years R/o Near Rameshwari Durga Chowk Station Road, Mahasamund, Police Station Tahsil And District Mahasamund C.G. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Ajit Singh Gurudatta S/o Late Gurumukh Singh Aged About 61 Years R/o Station Road Mahasamund, Police Station, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Shri Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Gurudev I. Sharan, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 09.10.2025 1. Since common facts and issues are involved and both the petitions arise out of same impugned order, they are being heard and decided together by this common order. 2. Both the Criminal Misc. Petitions have been preferred under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 against order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund in Criminal Revision 2 No.H-36/2024 and H-37/2024 respectively whereby the the Criminal Revisions filed by the petitioners have been dismissed. 3. The subject matter of case in brief is that, the petitioners are the complainant who are prosecuting the complaint case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund, in Criminal Complaint Case Nos. 110/2017 and 109/2017 against the respondent accused. After recording his evidence, the statement of respondent accused was also recorded and thereafter the respondent accused has been examined himself as DW- 1. After examination of the respondent, the petitioner obtained an information from the police authority under Right to Information Act (in short, RTI) with respect to information that there is no entry of any complaint allegedly made by the accused to the police station City Kotwali, Mahasamund. In the proceeding of complaint case, the petitioner made an application on 18.09.2024 for permission to get the said document exhibited which was obtained under RTI on 16.09.2024, however, the said application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 24.09.2024 on the ground that the application has been filed at a belated stage and at the fag end of trial and therefore permission to exhibit those documents cannot be granted. 4. The order dated 24.09.2024 was challenged by the petitioner in the aforesaid Criminal Revisions before the First Additional Sessions Judge Mahasamund which has also been dismissed vide order dated 13.12.2024. The said order is under challenge in these petitions. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is only when the respondent accused has been examined before the trial court on 3 06.07.2023 and he made statement that in the month of August, 2016 his cheque book was missing for which he made a complaint on 28.08.2016 to the concerned police, he obtained necessary information under RTI from City Kotwali Police Mahasamund who disclosed the information on 16.09.2024 that no such complaint was made by the respondent accused to City Kotwali Police Mahasamund. Immediately thereafter on 18.09.2024 he made an application to get the said document exhibited in favour of the complainant, but the same has been rejected. He would further submit that no prejudice could have been caused to the respondent accused and he is having opportunity to cross examine the witness who has to exhibit the document. The petitioner only wants to get the said documents exhibited and other evidences has already come on record. Therefore, he may be permitted to exhibit the document filed by him. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent accused opposes and submitted that the application has been filed by the petitioner at a belated stage. From the very beginning he was in knowledge about transaction of the said cheque and during the entire period of pendency of the complaint case for about 8 years, he did not make effort to get the relevant information from the police authorities or from any other place. The trial court as well as the revisional court has already rejected the application of the petitioner which is absolutely justified and no interference is required. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petitions. 8. True it is that the present complaint has been filed in the year 2017 and the application to get the documents exhibited has been filed on 4 18.09.2024. However, from perusal of document Annexure P/4 which is the deposition of respondent accused DW-1, it transpires that in paragraph 2 of his deposition he has stated that in the month of August, 2016 his cheque book was missing for which he made a written complaint to police station on 28.08.2016. As per the petitioner, it is the starting point of knowledge that cheque book of respondent accused was missing and he made an application under RTI for disclosure of the information about making such complaint by the respondent to the police and in compliance thereof, the information has been disclosed on 16.09.2024 (Annexure P/3) that no such complaint has been made on 28.08.2016 to City Kotwali Police Station Mahasamund. After getting the information on 16.09.2024, on 18.09.2024 an application has been filed by the petitioner before the trial court along with the document and prayed for marking of the said document exhibited in favour of the complainant. The trial court has rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that it has been filed at the fag end of trial, however, in the opinion of this court, the document sought to be exhibited in evidence by the petitioner came in existence only after recording the evidence of DW-1 on 06.07.2024 and thereafter when the information has been supplied to the petitioner, immediately thereafter he availed his remedy to file relevant application before the trial court, which cannot be said to be belated. Even otherwise, he only prays for exhibition of document in evidence and the respondent accused is having ample opportunity to cross examine the witnesses who would mark the said document exhibited. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the claim of the petitioner for exhibiting the document filed by him, this court is 5 inclined to allow these petitions and permit the petitioners to get the documents exhibited by reexamining the complainant only to the extent of exhibition of said document. 10. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 13.12.2024 and 24.09.2024 are set aside. The trial court is directed to permit the petitioner to exhibit the document Annexure P/3 which is the information dated 16.09.2024 issued by City Kotwali Police Mahasamund to the petitioner, and the parties are restricted only to the extent of exhibiting the document and cross examination to that extent. 11.The trial court shall fix a date for exhibition of said document and the parties are directed not to take any further unnecessary adjournment in the proceeding of the case. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder