Complainant's ITRs in Cheque Case Need Relevance: Raj HC

Complainant's Tax Returns Cannot Be Summoned in Cheque Case Without Showing Relevance: Rajasthan High Court

Published: 29 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissed an accused's petition under Section 528 BNSS against a magistrate's refusal to summon the complainant's income tax returns, bank statements and loan statements in a cheque-dishonour case pending since 2015 (paras 1, 4, 8). The complainant's financial capacity may be relevant under Section 138 of the NI Act, but the party seeking documents must show their necessity and relevance; the power to summon documents cannot be invoked in a "routine or roving manner" (paras 6, 6.1).

Key holdings

Documents may be summoned at any stage, but only on their relevance and necessity, not because a party or third person holds them (para 5).

The complainant's financial capacity may be relevant under Section 138, but the accused must show why particular documents are needed (para 6).

Refusing documents whose relevance is not shown does not curtail the right to lead a defence (para 6.1).

A reasoned refusal by the trial court, in a case pending since 2015, called for no interference under the inherent jurisdiction (paras 7-8).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The petitioner is the accused in a cheque-dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending before the Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 1, Udaipur since 2015 (paras 1, 8). He applied to summon the complainant's income tax returns for 2011-12 to 2013-14 and his bank and loan statements for 2005 to 2015 (para 4). On 1 May 2025 the magistrate rejected the application as no relevance or necessity was shown, relying on Smt. Shyama Bai and Guddo Devi (paras 1, 4, 4.1). The petitioner said the returns were essential to test the complainant's financial capacity to advance the amount of the disputed cheque (para 2). Only the petitioner was heard (para 3).

Court's Findings

The High Court noted the trial court's specific finding that the petitioner had not demonstrated the relevance and necessity of the documents (para 4). A trial court may summon documents at any stage, but the power must be exercised judicially, keeping their relevance and necessity in view; their mere availability with a party or a third person is not enough unless the applicant shows their specific relevance to the issues (para 5). The complainant's financial capacity may be a relevant consideration in a Section 138 case, yet the burden lies on the party seeking the documents, and relevance cannot be presumed merely because the case arises under Section 138 (para 6). The power cannot be invoked in a routine or roving manner or used to enlarge the trial; a fair opportunity to defend does not excuse the applicant from showing a legitimate bearing on the questions involved, so the rejection did not curtail the right to lead a defence (para 6.1). The trial court had considered the submissions and given reasons; its order showed no illegality or perversity warranting interference under the inherent jurisdiction (para 7).

Legal Principle

In a cheque-dishonour trial the power to summon documents is exercised judicially, on their relevance and necessity. The complainant's financial capacity may be relevant, but an accused seeking his tax returns or bank records must show their specific bearing on the issues; relevance is not presumed merely because the complaint is under Section 138 (paras 5, 6, 6.1).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

This order does not stop an accused in a cheque case from testing whether the complainant could have lent the amount: financial capacity may be relevant (para 6). But an application to summon the complainant's records must explain which documents are needed and how each bears on the issues; a broad request for three years of tax returns and bank and loan statements for 2005 to 2015, made without that explanation, failed (paras 4, 6.1). Compare Mahesh Tiwari (handwriting expert's opinion for an accused who consistently denies his signature, unless the request is vexatious) and Chotha Ram (police officers' call records summoned and preserved where the accused disputes the arrest and seizure).

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

Smt. Shyama Bai v. Ganga Ram S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1594/2017, decided on 17.04.2017
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4.1
Co-ordinate Bench decision, relied on by the trial court, observing that the source of funds and income tax returns of the complainant are not the subject matter of inquiry in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (para 4.1). The High Court recorded the trial court's reliance and found no illegality in its order (paras 4.1, 7).
Guddo Devi @ Guddi v. Bhupendra Kumar Criminal Revision Petition No. 1246/2019 (Delhi High Court), decided on 11.02.2020
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4.1
Delhi High Court decision on a challenge to a Section 138 conviction, relied on by the trial court, observing that a breach of the Income Tax Act, 1961 attracts penalties under that Act but does not render the debt unenforceable or prevent the lender from recovering it (para 4.1). The High Court recorded the trial court's reliance (para 4.1).