Madhya Pradesh High Court
Garima Kabar vs Chiranjeev Dubey on 25 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27271
1 MCRC-13436-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 25 th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 13436 of 2026
GARIMA KABAR
Versus
CHIRANJEEV DUBEY
Appearance:
Shri Harpreet Singh Gupta- Advocate for petitioner through VC.
None for respondent.
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the petitioner
challenging the order dated 05.02.2026 passed by the learned JMFC, Gadarwara,
District Narsinghpur in S.C.N.I.A. No. 263/2025 whereby the application preferred by
the petitioner under Section 94 of BNSS/ Section 91 Cr.P.C. seeking production of the
respondent’s Income Tax Returns and Income-Expenditure Statements for the last five
years has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has instituted
proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging dishonour of
cheque amounting to Rs.25,00,000/-. It is contended that the petitioner never issued the
cheque in question and had already lodged a complaint regarding misplacement of the
cheque book on 10.06.2024. It is further contended that the respondent has failed to
produce any documentary evidence to establish his financial capacity to lend such a
huge amount and, therefore, the respondent’s Income Tax Returns and Income-
Expenditure Statements are necessary for proper adjudication of the matter.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PARMESHWAR
GOPE
Signing time: 09-04-2026
17:51:42
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27271
2 MCRC-13436-2026
3. Per contra, the impugned order reveals that the learned trial Court found that
the petitioner did not clearly disclose how the documents sought were indispensable
for adjudication of the complaint.
4. Heard the parties. Upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered
opinion that no case for interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction is made out.
5. The scope of Section 91 Cr.P.C/Section 94 BNSS is limited to production of
such documents which are necessary for the purpose of investigation, inquiry, trial or
other proceedings. The necessity of a document has to be judged in the context of the
stage of the proceedings and the nature of defence sought to be raised.
6. In the present case, the petitioner has sought production of the respondent’s
Income Tax Returns and Income-Expenditure Statements for the last five years. Such
prayer is in the nature of a roving and fishing inquiry. The petitioner seeks to challenge
the complainant’s financial capacity to advance the alleged amount; however, the
complainant cannot be compelled at the threshold to disclose all his private financial
records merely because the accused disputes the transaction.
7. It is well settled that in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, once issuance of cheque and signature thereon are established or not
specifically denied, the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act operates in favour of the complainant. The burden then
shifts upon the accused to rebut the presumption by leading cogent evidence.
8. If the petitioner intends to establish that the cheque in question was not issued
by her or that the respondent lacked financial capacity to advance the alleged amount,
she is at liberty to do so by leading her evidence and by cross-examining the
complainant during trial. The petitioner may also rely upon the complaint allegedly
lodged regarding misplacement of cheque book and any other relevant material in
support of her defence.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PARMESHWAR
GOPE
Signing time: 09-04-2026
17:51:42
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:27271
3 MCRC-13436-2026
9. The plea of the petitioner regarding alleged loss or misplacement of cheque
book is a matter of defence, which can be established during trial by leading
appropriate evidence. Similarly, the question regarding the complainant’s financial
capacity can also be tested during cross-examination. Merely because the petitioner
wishes to dispute the source of funds of the complainant, the complainant cannot be
directed to produce his entire financial record for the last five years.
10. The learned trial Court has considered the application in its proper
perspective and has rightly held that the documents sought are not necessary for
adjudication of the case at this stage. The impugned order does not suffer from any
perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Section 482
Cr.P.C. / Section 528 BNSS.
11. Accordingly, the present petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.
12. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of
the case. Any observations made herein shall not prejudice the case of either party
during trial and learned Trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of evidence led
before it, uninfluenced by any observations made in this order.
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
PG
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PARMESHWAR
GOPE
Signing time: 09-04-2026
17:51:42
