Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed a set of petitions filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (previously Section 482 Cr.P.C.), wherein both the complainant and the accused challenged a trial court's order concerning document production in proceedings arising out of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court upheld the lower court’s order that allowed only partial document disclosure and declined the rest on the ground of irrelevance or lack of possession by the complainant.

The court concluded that the petitioner's challenge to the trial court's decision lacked merit, affirming the need for document relevance and availability as prerequisites under Section 91 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, all three petitions were dismissed, with the Court stating that the documents sought beyond those already permitted did not serve the trial’s purpose. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of in light of this decision.

Also Read: Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order On Kakiho Village Recognition | Directs Nagaland Government To Reassess Public Objections And Follow Due Process

The matter concerned three petitions filed in connection with complaint cases arising from alleged dishonour of cheques issued pursuant to an MoU executed between the parties. The complainant and accused had previously collaborated on real estate projects. Disputes arose over financial transactions and management of operations.

In 2011, the complainant Suninder Sandha approached the accused Jeevesh Sabharwal proposing collaboration in real estate marketing, resulting in a joint effort for a project named IRIDIA developed by Horizon Buildcon Private Limited (HBPL). The parties formed Horizon Concept Private Limited (HCPL) where Sandha held 25% shares. In 2013, they collaborated again to form Concept Horizon Infra Pvt. Ltd. (CHIPL) for another project named Orizzonte, with Sandha overseeing daily operations.

The parties parted ways in March 2016 under an MoU dated 16.03.2016. Sandha was to receive Rs. 27 crores through post-dated cheques. However, following their separation, an FIR was registered against Sandha under Sections 406/420/467/468/471 r/w 120-B/34 IPC alleging fraud. Concurrently, some cheques issued to Sandha were dishonoured. He initiated proceedings under Section 138 NI Act in October 2016, currently at the cross-examination stage.

Subsequently, the accused filed an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. on 02.05.2024, seeking various documents from the complainant, alleging their necessity for cross-examination. The trial court on 23.10.2024 partly allowed the request, directing production of only two categories of documents: Income Tax Returns (ITRs) and the complainant’s HDFC Bank statements.

Both parties contested this order. Sandha argued that Section 91 did not mandate disclosure of documents not relevant or not in his possession. Conversely, Sabharwal challenged the denial of remaining documents on the premise that they were necessary for effective cross-examination.

The court consolidated CRL.M.C. 9251/2024 and 9252/2024 (filed by Sandha) and CRL.M.C. 1081/2025 (filed by Sabharwal), and examined the list of 17 categories of documents requested.

The court began by reproducing Section 91 of Cr.P.C. and stated two requirements: (i) the person must be in possession or control of the documents; and (ii) the documents must be necessary or desirable for the proceeding.

It cited State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568: "The necessity or desirability would have to be seen with reference to the stage when a prayer is made for the production… law does not permit a roving or fishing inquiry." The court also referenced Sukhmohinder Singh Sandhu v. CBI, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2481, which held: "The accused under section 91 Cr.P.C. cannot ask the production of documents as a matter of right… He cannot ask the court to make roving and fishing enquiry."

On the list of 17 document categories, the trial court allowed production only for serial numbers 6 (ITRs for FY 2009–2017) and 14 (HDFC Bank statement), noting: "Same have not been denied to be in possession of the complainant and it appears to this Court that these documents will be necessary for the adjudication of the present matter."

Regarding the remaining documents:

• For documents related to IT data and CRM under a URL (Sl. No. 1), the court recorded: "The URL has become redundant... no purpose would be served."

• On employment-related records (Sl. No. 2, 4), it was observed: "Such documents should be in possession of the accused company."

• Buyer lists and cash collection records (Sl. No. 3, 5, 10, 11): "Stated not to be in possession of the complainant... cannot be directed to be produced as per Section 91 Cr.P.C."

• Correspondences between complainant and accused (Sl. No. 8, 9): "These are communications between the Complainant and the accused... expected to be within the possession of accused."

• Other bank statements and records of companies allegedly associated with the complainant (Sl. Nos. 12, 13, 15, 16, 17) were deemed irrelevant. The court observed: "These documents cannot be considered necessary for adjudication of the complaint under Section 138 NI Act."

In summary, the High Court found the trial court had rightly applied the principles under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to determine the necessity and possession criteria for document production.

The court issued the following conclusions and directions:

"The two documents are the Income Tax Returns and the Bank Statements, have rightly been held to be the relevant documents for adjudication of the Complaint under S.138 NI Act. The challenge by the Complainant to the impugned Order dated 23.10.2024 directing production of these two documents has no merit and the CRL.M.C. 9251/2024 & 9252/2024 of the Complainant has no merit."

Also Read: Arbitral Awards Quashed For Ignoring Clear Contractual Terms | Delhi High Court Holds Clause 3.4.1.5 Left No Room For Interpretation

"The documents, other than those at Serial number 6 & 14, production of which is sought by the Accused person, are neither necessary nor required for the proper adjudication of the complaint case filed by the Complainant herein under Section 138 N.I. Act and are also stated to be not in the possession of the Complainant."

"There is no merit in the aforesaid Petitions which are hereby dismissed. The pending Application(s), if any, are disposed of accordingly."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Asim Naeem, Mr. Cherry Gupta, Ms. Anisa, and Ms. Subhani Shabahat, Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. Adit S. Pujari, Mr. Zeeshan Thomas, and Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP for the State

Case Title: Suninder Sandha v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:4581

Case Number: CRL.M.C. 9251/2024, 9252/2024, 1081/2025

Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

[Read/Download order]