SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. - (1.) he petitioner by way of this criminal misc. petition challenges the order dated 17.9.2019, whereby an application moved under Section 91 Cr.P.C. calling for registration certificate of the firm, ITR and details of the firm has been rejected.
(2.) Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the application was moved with the purpose to establish his title at the level of complainant who claims himself to be proprietor of the firm and therefore, the application was relevant and the Court ought to have called the record relating to the said documents.
(3.) Learned Counsel relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Milind Shripad Chandurkar Vs. M. Khan & Anr., reported in AIR 2011 SC 1588 to submit that locus to file a complaint can always be examined by the Court. Learned Counsel submits that for the purpose of filing complaint in relation to property concerned, the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has held as under: "22. Thus, in view of the above, the law stands crystallised to the effect that a person can maintain a complaint provided he is either a "payee" or "holder in due course" of the cheque. 23. In the instant case, it is evident that the firm, namely, Vijaya Automobiles, has been the payee and that the appellant cannot claim to be the payee of the cheque, nor can he be the holder in due course, unless he establishes that the cheques had been issued to him or in his favour or that he is the sole proprietor of the concern and being so, he could also be payee himself and thus, entitled to make the complaint. The appellant miserably failed to prove any nexus or connection by adducing any evidence, whatsoever, worth the name with the said firm, namely, Vijaya Automobiles. Mere statement in the affidavit in this regard, is not sufficient to meet the requirement of law. The appellant failed to produce any documentary evidence to connect himself with the said firm. It is evident that the firm had a substantial amount of business as in one month it sold the diesel to respondent No. 1-a single party, for a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs. The appellant would, in addition, have also been carrying out business with other persons. Thus, a person with such a big business must have had transactions with the bank and must have been a payee of income tax, sales tax etc. Thus, in such a fact-situation, there would be no dearth of material which could have been produced by the appellant to show that he was the sole proprietor of the said firm. The appellant failed to adduce any evidence in this regard, nor made any attempt to adduce any additional evidence at the appellate stage, in spite of the fact that the respondent is raising this issue from the initiation of the proceedings." ;