The Bombay High Court has clarified that Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure imposes a mandatory obligation on trial courts to call upon the prosecution or accused to admit or deny the genuineness of documents once formally listed, regardless of their perceived relevance. This ruling reinforces procedural safeguards for accused persons and curtails judicial discretion that may delay trials.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, a partnership firm and its partners, are accused in four criminal complaints filed by Dr. Sachin Gopalrao Saoji under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaints allege dishonour of four cheques, each of Rs. 8,00,000, issued in September 2017. The complainant contends these cheques were issued pursuant to a compromise dated 16.09.2017, following an earlier complaint in 2017 regarding seven dishonoured cheques. The petitioners assert that the underlying transaction relates to a land sale governed by a registered sale deed dated 25.07.2012 and a correction deed dated 05.09.2014, which were deliberately suppressed by the complainant.
Key Facts
- The alleged offence stems from four dishonoured cheques dated between October 2017 and January 2018
- The complainant filed the first complaint (S.C.C. No. 4558/2017) in 2017 for seven dishonoured cheques
- A compromise was recorded on 16.09.2017, after which four new cheques were issued
- The petitioners claim the cheques were issued as security for a land transaction involving Gat No. 15, Fatehpur, Aurangabad
- The sale deed dated 25.07.2012 and correction deed dated 05.09.2014 were not disclosed during initial proceedings
- Additional documents sought include: Revised Development Permissions dated 18.10.2012 and 28.09.2023, TILR Map for Gat No. 14, and a Divyamarathi newspaper article dated 19.05.2014
Procedural History
- 2017: First complaint filed under Section 138 NI Act (S.C.C. No. 4558/2017)
- 16.09.2017: Compromise recorded between parties
- Late 2017 - Early 2018: Four cheques issued post-compromise, all dishonoured
- 2019: Four separate complaints filed under Section 138 NI Act, including S.C.C. No. 7117/2019 (present case)
- Before 14.11.2025: Petitioners filed application under Section 294 CrPC (Exh. 34) seeking permission to produce documents and direction to complainant to admit/deny them
- 14.11.2025: 11th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, rejected the application on grounds of irrelevance
- 23.03.2026: Writ petition reserved for judgment
- 16.04.2026: Judgment pronounced by Bombay High Court
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners
The petitioners argue that the documents sought are critical to establishing that the cheques were issued as security for a land transaction, not as payment for a debt or liability. They contend that the suppression of the sale deed and correction deed by the complainant undermines the foundation of the complaint. They rely on Geeta Marine Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Sureshbabu Dulappa Talbhandare v. State of Maharashtra to assert that Section 294 CrPC is mandatory and non-discretionary.
For the Respondent
The complainant argues that Section 294 CrPC only permits admission or denial of documents, not their production. He contends that the documents are irrelevant because the cheques were issued post-compromise and relate solely to the settlement of prior dues. He relies on Rajendra Singh Chhatrasal Singh Kushwaha v. Jitendra Singh Rajendra Singh Kushwah and Yogendra Bhagatram Sachdev v. State of Maharashtra to argue that additional evidence cannot be introduced at a late stage to improve the defence.
Relief Sought
The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 14.11.2025 rejecting their Section 294 CrPC application, and a direction to the Trial Court to compel the complainant to admit or deny the genuineness of the listed documents.
The Legal Issue
Does Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure impose a mandatory obligation on the Trial Court to call upon the prosecution or accused to admit or deny the genuineness of documents once formally listed, even if their relevance is disputed?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners argue that Section 294 CrPC is a procedural safeguard designed to expedite trials by eliminating unnecessary proof of undisputed documents. They rely on Sureshbabu Dulappa Talbhandare v. State of Maharashtra to assert that failure to follow Section 294 CrPC prejudices the accused’s right to a fair trial. They emphasize that the documents were already permitted for production under Exh. 34 and Exh. 35, and that the law requires the opposing party to be given an opportunity to admit or deny their genuineness. The use of the word "shall" in Section 294, they argue, leaves no room for judicial discretion.
For the Respondent
The respondent contends that Section 294 CrPC does not authorize the production of new documents but only governs the admission or denial of documents already in the record. They argue that the documents sought are irrelevant to the core issue - whether the cheques were issued for a legally enforceable debt. They rely on Rajendra Singh Chhatrasal Singh Kushwaha and Yogendra Bhagatram Sachdev to assert that courts may refuse to permit evidence that is not relevant to the issues framed or that is introduced belatedly to alter the defence.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of Section 294 CrPC, its legislative intent, and judicial precedents. It noted that the Trial Court had already permitted the production of the documents under Exh. 34 and Exh. 35, yet refused to apply Section 294 CrPC to call upon the complainant to admit or deny them. This, the Court held, was a fundamental error.
"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 Court emphasized that the word "shall" in Section 294 is not directory but mandatory. It cited the Full Bench decision in Shaikh Farid Hussainsab v. State of Maharashtra, which held that the provision was introduced to "avoid unnecessary waste of time" and to "facilitate removal of such obstruction in the speedy trial." The Court observed that the purpose of Section 294 is procedural efficiency, not substantive adjudication of relevance.
"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 Court rejected the respondent’s argument that relevance must be established before invoking Section 294. It clarified that the determination of relevance and admissibility is a matter for final adjudication on merits, not for pre-admission screening under Section 294. The Court further noted that the complainant retains full rights to challenge the admissibility of documents later, and that merely calling upon him to admit or deny does not constitute a judicial determination.
The Trial Court’s reliance on Section 136 of the Evidence Act and Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC was misplaced, as those provisions govern the admissibility of evidence during trial, not the procedural requirement under Section 294 CrPC to identify disputed documents at an early stage.
The Verdict
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.11.2025 is quashed and set aside. The Trial Court is directed to call upon the complainant to admit or deny the genuineness of the documents listed in Exh. 35 under Section 294 CrPC. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the pending complaint, S.C.C. No. 7117/2019, expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this judgment.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Section 294 CrPC Is Mandatory, Not Discretionary
- Practitioners must insist on strict compliance with Section 294 CrPC whenever documents are listed, regardless of perceived relevance
- Courts cannot refuse to invoke Section 294 on grounds of relevance, delay, or tactical litigation
- Failure to follow Section 294 may render proceedings vitiated and subject to quashing under Article 226
Relevance Is Decided Later, Not at Admission Stage
- The question of whether a document is relevant or admissible is for final adjudication, not for pre-screening under Section 294
- Accused may list documents even at a late stage, provided they are formally included in the list
- Prosecution cannot object to the procedure under Section 294 on substantive grounds
Speedy Trial Requires Procedural Rigour
- Section 294 is a tool to reduce trial time, not to restrict defence rights
- Courts must avoid conflating evidentiary rules with procedural mandates
- Delay in applying Section 294 may be grounds for appellate interference, especially in long-pending cases
