1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2600 of 2025 1 - Moh. Kadir Khan S/o Moh. Noor Aged About 37 Years R/o Durpa Basti Daak Ghar Ke Samne, Durpa Road Kusmunda, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Priyanka Sharma W/o Ravindra Sharma Aged About 37 Years Proprietor - M/s Arya Tyre Plot No. 409, T.P. Nagar, Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate. For Respondents : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 21/08/ 2025 1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, assailing the legality and propriety of the inter-locatory order dated 20.05.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 3327/2019, whereby the application filed under Section 94 of B.N.S.S. by the petitioner has been rejected. 2. The facts of the case were that the complainant/respondent Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.08.22 17:02:51 +0530 2 filed the case under Section 138 of N.I. Act before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba, District Korba (C.G.), and during the pendency of the case, the complainant was examined and when the matter was fixed for the defence witness, the petitioner moved an application under Section 94 of B.N.S.S. stating therein that the bill with regard to the sale of tyres to the petitioner, which was produced in the present case is the estimated bill and the complainant may be directed to produce the ledger book of year 2017 and audit report of GST department of year 2016-17 to demonstrate the cheque was not issued under any legal obligation, but the same was given as a security to the complainant, which was misused by the complainant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the bill which was filed in the present complaint case is the estimated bill, in which there is no GST Number, Invoice Number and date column are mentioned and the entire complaint case is based upon the bill, which was filed by the complainant before the Court. The learned trial Court dismissed the application under Section 94 of BNSS, which deprives the petitioner of leading the evidence and defence. Hence, the petition may be allowed, and the impugned order may be set aside. 3 4. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition including the impugned order. 5. Learned trial Court found that it is evident that the case is set for defence evidence. The accused has stated in his application that the bill presented by the complainant is not a bill of sale of tyres; it is only an estimate. This has been presented by the complainant as a bill in which the signature of the accused is also not there. From the perusal of the case, it is evident that the documents Ex. P-8 presented by the complainant supports her complaint clearly mentions the bill, which is in the name of Arya Tyres, in which the signature of Arya Tyres and the customer's signature are there. The details of the material sold, the quantity of amount are also mentioned in the said bill. Thus, the said document is a carbon copy of the original, which is admissible in evidence. The original document is not required in this regard. As far as the accused has demanded the ledger book of the complainant dated 09.08.2017 and the audit report in the GST department, it is a business matter of the complainant; which documents have to be produced in support of his case or not. Hence, the application filed by the petitioner herein has been rejected as being devoid of merit. 4 6. Looking to the material available on record and also a detailed examination of the impugned order passed by the trial Court does not reveal any illegality or irregularity in it, nor is the said order improper. Therefore, this Court does not find it appropriate to interfere with the order impugned. 7. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) H.L. Sahu Judge