Bombay High Court
M/S Assent Ventures A Partnership Firm … vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 18 April, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:16848
16 CRI WP NO. 80 OF 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 80 OF 2026
1] M/s Ascent Ventures
A Partnership Firm registered U/Partnership Act,
having it's Office at Plot No. G-8, First Floor,
Town Center, Above Dwarkadas Shamkumar Showroom,
Opp. YSK Hospital, N-6 Aurangabad.
Through Petitioner No.2
2] Sameer Ramanlal Bhandari
Age : 46 Yrs. Occupation : Business,
R/o. Plot No. G-8, First Floor, Town Center,
Above Dwarkadas Shamkumar Showroom,
Opp. YSK Hospital, N-6 Aurangabad
3] Darshana Sameer Bhandari
Age : 44 Yrs. Occupation : Business,
R/o: As above
4] Ramanlal Chunnilal Bhandari
Age : 85 Yrs. Occupation : Business
R/o: As above ... Petitioners
VERSUS
1] The State Of Maharashtra
High Court of Bombay,
Bench at Aurangabad.
2] Dr. Sachin Gopalrao Saoji
Age : 53 Yrs. Occupation : Doctor,
R/o: 32, Shiniketan Colony, Aurangabad
Dist : Aurangabad ... Respondents
...
• Mr. S. S. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioners
• Ms. P. J. Bharad, APP for Respondent No. 1 - State
• Mr. P. F. Patni, Advocate for Respondent No. 2
...
CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.
RESERVED ON : 23.03.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 18.04.2026
Jhs/ 1/13
16 CRI WP NO. 80 OF 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioners have filed the present petition seeking quashing
and setting aside of the order dated 14.11.2025 passed below Exh. 20
in S.C.C. No. 4454 of 2019 by the learned 11th Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, and for allowing Exh. 20 in the said
proceedings.
SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONERS :-
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the accused
have filed an application under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure seeking permission to produce certain documents and for a
direction to the complainant to admit or deny the said documents. It
is submitted that the transactions between the parties pertain to a
registered sale deed dated 25.07.2012 in respect of a portion of land
bearing Gat No. 15 situated at Fatehpur, Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad.
The said sale deed has been deliberately suppressed by the
complainant. It is further submitted that there was a clear assurance
given by the complainant that if the area of the land purchased is
found to be less than what was agreed upon, the complainant would
proportionately reduce the price of the land. The said sale deed dated
25.07.2012 was subsequently corrected vide correction deed dated
05.09.2014. The petitioners, therefore, filed an application seeking
permission to produce the following documents:-
Jhs/ 2/13
16 CRI WP NO. 80 OF 2026
A. Sale Deed dated 25.07.2012
B. Correction Deed dated 05.09.2014
C. Revised Development Permission dated 18.10.2012
D. Revised Development Permission dated 28.09.2023
E. TILR Map showing revised demarcated layout on Gat No. 14
F. Divyamarathi Newspaper dated 19.05.2014
3. It is submitted that the aforesaid documents are relevant for
the defence of the petitioners and would assist them in substantiating
their defence. It is further submitted that though the said documents
were not filed earlier, the petitioners ought to be permitted to place
them on record.
4. Learned counsel further submits that in view of Section 294
Cr.P.C., a direction ought to be issued to the complainant to admit or
deny the said documents. It is submitted that similar applications
have been filed in all the four complaints instituted by the
complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENTS :-
5. The complainant has filed a say opposing the application under
Section 294 Cr.P.C., contending that the same is not tenable in law. It
is submitted that Section 294 Cr.P.C. only contemplates admission or
denial of documents and does not provide for production of
additional documents. Hence, the application deserves to be rejected.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that
Jhs/ 3/13
16 CRI WP NO. 80 OF 2026the present complaint was filed in the year 2019 and that, for the
first time, the petitioners have now raised the issue of reliance upon
the sale deed and correction deed, only with an intention to protract
the proceedings. It is further submitted that an earlier criminal case
filed by the complainant in the year 2017 for dishonour of seven
cheques came to be compromised between the parties, pursuant to
which the petitioners issued further cheques towards settlement. Out
of the said 13 cheques, four cheques of Rs. 8,00,000/- each were
dishonoured, and therefore, the present complaint, along with three
other complaints, came to be filed.
7. Thus, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
dishonour of the present cheques pertains to the compromise arrived
at between the parties on 16.09.2017, after the initial complaint
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed in the
year 2017 for dishonour of seven cheques, one of which is S.C.C. No.
4558 of 2017. It is, therefore, submitted that the documents sought
to be brought on record have no relevance to the adjudication of the
present complaint, which pertains solely to the dishonour of the
cheques issued pursuant to the said compromise dated 16.09.2017.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that
Section 136 of the Evidence Act confers discretion upon the Court to
permit parties to lead evidence only if the same is relevant. It is
Jhs/ 4/13
16 CRI WP NO. 80 OF 2026submitted that the cheques in question were issued in pursuance of a
compromise arrived at on 05.09.2017, and therefore, the sale deed,
correction deed, and revised maps sought to be produced are not
relevant to the present proceedings. It is thus submitted that the
learned Trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion in rejecting the
application filed by the petitioners.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that
Section 136 of the Evidence Act is analogous to Order XVIII Rule 4 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, which also provides that evidence may
be permitted only if it is found to be relevant. It is submitted that the
learned Trial Court, having found that the documents sought to be
produced are not relevant, has rightly rejected the application.
Learned counsel further relies upon the judgment in Rajendra Singh
Chhatrasal Singh Kushwaha Vs. Jitendra Singh Rajendra Singh
Kushwah; 2013 (6) Mh.L. J., 802 to contend that the Court cannot
permit parties to lead irrelevant evidence or evidence not related to
the issues, as set out in the affidavit filed by way of examination-in-
chief in lieu of oral evidence.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent further relies upon the
judgment in Yogendra Bhagatram Sachdev vs. State of Maharashtra
and another, reported in 2003 STPL 3392 (Bom) , to submit that the
evidence sought to be led by the defence is an attempt to improve its
Jhs/ 5/13
16 CRI WP NO. 80 OF 2026
case, and therefore, such permission to lead additional evidence
cannot be granted at the appellate stage.
11. In rebuttal, the petitioners have relied upon the judgment of
the Bombay High Court in Geeta Marine Services Pvt. Ltd. and
Another vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2009 (3) BCR (Cri)
633, to demonstrate the scope and relevance of Section 294 Cr.P.C.
and its application in cases where the accused seeks to produce
documents and requests the Court to direct the complainant to admit
or deny the same.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further relied upon the
judgment of this Court in Sureshbabu Dulappa Talbhandare vs. State
of Maharashtra, reported in 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 1515, to submit that
the procedure under Section 294 Cr.P.C. is mandatory and is required
to be followed, and that failure to adhere to the said procedure may
cause prejudice to the accused.
REASONING :-
13. I have perused the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 passed
by the learned 11th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad
in S.C.C. No. 4454 of 2019. A perusal of the said order indicates that
the accused had filed an application at Exh. 21 seeking permission to
produce certain documents along with a list of documents at Exh. 22.
The order further reveals that the application at Exh. 21 has been
Jhs/ 6/13
16 CRI WP NO. 80 OF 2026
allowed and the production of the said documents has already been
permitted by the learned Trial Court.
14. The learned Trial Court has considered the relevancy of the
documents sought to be produced without addressing the other
prayer made by the applicant, namely, for a direction to the
complainant to admit or deny the said documents under Section 294
Cr.P.C. The Trial Court has unnecessarily entered into the aspect of
relevancy and thereafter rejected the prayer of the petitioners to
direct the complainant to admit or deny the said documents. The
second prayer made by the petitioners, seeking reference of the said
documents under Section 294 Cr.P.C., has not been considered at all.
No reasons have been assigned as to why the documents, which have
already been permitted to be brought on record by allowing Exh. 21
(application) and Exh. 22 (list of documents), cannot be put to the
complainant in exercise of powers under Section 294 Cr.P.C.
15. Section 294 Cr.P.C. provides that the particulars of documents
sought to be filed in Court must be included in a list, and the
prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, shall be called upon
to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document. The section
lays down the procedure for determining when a document can be
admitted in evidence or when it must be proved in accordance with
law. In essence, whenever any document is filed before a Court by the
Jhs/ 7/13
16 CRI WP NO. 80 OF 2026
prosecution or the accused, it must be included in the list, and once
included, the other party – the defence, the accused, or the
State/Prosecution shall be called upon to admit or deny its
genuineness.
16. Section 294 Cr.P.C. does not prohibit the filing of a document at
a subsequent stage, either by the prosecution or by the defence. It
only requires that any document sought to be produced on record
shall be included in the list of documents, so that the other party is
made aware of it. Once a document is included in the list, the other
party shall be called upon to admit or deny its genuineness. It is,
therefore, clear that a document may be filed even after the filing of a
charge-sheet by the prosecution, or at any stage by the defence,
provided it is included in the list.
17. It is evident from the record that the accused have already filed
an application at Exh. 21, along with a list of documents at Exh. 22,
which has already been allowed by the learned Trial Court. No
reasons have been assigned by the Trial Court as to why the said
documents cannot be put to the complainant, calling upon him to
admit or deny their genuineness. The learned Trial Court has failed to
take into consideration that, when the prosecution is called upon to
admit or deny the documents, it is not necessary for the complainant
to choose either option; he may admit or deny the same. The law
Jhs/ 8/13
16 CRI WP NO. 80 OF 2026
relating to the proof of such documents would then apply depending
on whether the complainant admits or denies them. Merely calling
upon the complainant to admit or deny the genuineness of such
documents under Section 294 Cr.P.C. would, in my opinion, not cause
any prejudice. The complainant still has the opportunity to challenge
the admissibility of such documents, and merely putting the
documents to the complainant does not amount to judicial
determination of their admissibility.
18. The procedure under Section 294 Cr.P.C. was introduced to
avoid unnecessary delay and remove obstructions in the speedy trial.
It enables the prosecution or the accused to admit or deny the
genuineness of documents at the outset in writing. Upon admission
or indication of no dispute regarding genuineness, the Court is
authorised to dispense with formal proof. In fact, once no dispute is
indicated, proof of the document becomes a mere formality.
19. The Hon’ble Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Shaikh
Farid Hussainsab vs. State of Maharashtra, 83 Bom LR 278, has held
as follows:
“7. Section 294 of the Code is introduced to dispense with this
avoidable waste of time and facilitate removal of such
obstruction in the speedy trial. The accused is now enabled to
waive the said right and save the time. This is a new provision
having no corresponding provision in the repealed Code of
Criminal Procedure. It requires the prosecutor or the accused, as
the case may be, to admit or deny the genuineness of theJhs/ 9/13
16 CRI WP NO. 80 OF 2026document sought to be relied against him at the outset in
writing. On his admitting or indicating no dispute as to the
genuineness, the Court is authorised to dispense with its formal
proof thereof. In fact after indication of no dispute as to the
genuineness, proof of documents is reduced to a sheer empty
formality. The section is obviously aimed at undoing the judicial
view by legislative process.”
20. In my opinion, the learned Trial Court committed an error in
rejecting the application solely on the ground of relevancy of the
documents sought to be relied upon by the petitioner/accused, on the
basis that the four cheques of Rs. 8,00,000/- each were issued after
the parties had entered into the settlement. The production of the
proposed documents had already been permitted by the learned
predecessor of the Trial Court as per the order below Exh. 21. It is the
choice of the accused to prove his defence by leading evidence which
according to him is necessary.
21. The aforesaid view taken by the learned Trial Court is contrary
to the provisions of Section 294 Cr.P.C., which mandates that if a
document is included in the list, the prosecution or the accused, or
their pleader, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness
of each such document. The word used is ‘shall’ and not ‘may’,
leaving no discretion to the Trial Court to deny such a request.
22. It is well settled that whether a statutory provision is
mandatory or directory depends upon several factors. The mere use
of the word “shall” is not conclusive. Although “shall” generally
Jhs/ 10/13
16 CRI WP NO. 80 OF 2026
indicates a mandatory intent, the Courts, having regard to the
context, have in certain cases interpreted it as directory. The context
in which the word “shall” appears, if considered along with the
object, purpose and scheme of Section 294 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, for which it was introduced, makes it clear that the word
“shall” appearing in Section 294 indicates a mandatory intent and not
a discretionary one. Section 294 has been introduced by the
legislature with a view to avoid unnecessary consumption of time in
trial and to facilitate expeditious proceedings. The provision confers a
right upon the accused to waive objection and thereby save time.
Similarly, the prosecution is also conferred with such a right to waive
objection and expedite the trial.
23. The said provision mandates that the prosecution or the
accused must admit or deny the genuineness of the document sought
to be relied upon against them. Upon such admission, the Court is
empowered to dispense with the formal proof thereof. However, mere
admission of a document does not ipso facto determine its
evidentiary value or relevance, which can be adjudicated by the Trial
Court while deciding the case on merits. The plain and unambiguous
language of Section 294 Cr.P.C. clearly indicates that calling upon the
prosecution or the accused to admit or deny the genuineness of
documents is mandatory and not discretionary. The word ‘shall’
Jhs/ 11/13
16 CRI WP NO. 80 OF 2026
denotes a mandatory obligation, whereas ‘may’ indicates permission,
possibility, or discretion. This principle has been consistently
recognized by the Courts.
24. Thus, taking into consideration that the proposed documents
have already been permitted by the Trial Court as per the orders
below Exh. 21 and Exh. 22 to be brought on record, there is no
reason why the Trial Court should not have exercised its powers
under Section 294 Cr.P.C. to call upon the complainant to admit or
deny the genuineness of the said documents.
25. In my view, therefore, the impugned order is arbitrary and is
thus liable to be quashed and set aside.
26. The observations made herein are prima facie in nature and
are intended solely for the purpose of deciding the present writ
petition. They shall not influence the Trial Court. The Trial Court
shall independently examine the relevance of the documents brought
on record, without being influenced by any observations made by this
Court.
27. Hence, the following order :-
ORDER
A) The writ petition is allowed.
B) The impugned order dated 14.11.2025 passed below Exh. 20
in S.C.C. No. 4454 of 2019 is hereby quashed and set aside.Jhs/ 12/13
16 CRI WP NO. 80 OF 2026C) The learned Trial Court is directed to call upon the
complainant to admit or deny the documents in accordance
with Section 294 Cr.P.C.
D) Considering that the complaint is pending since 2019, the Trial
Court shall endeavour to dispose of the same expeditiously,
preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the
judgment.
( MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. )
Jhs/ 13/13