S.294 CrPC Mandatory, Trial Court Cannot Reject Admission Or Denial Of Documents On Ground Of Relevance: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that Section 294 CrPC is mandatory and the Trial Court cannot reject an application seeking to call upon the opposite party to admit or deny documents merely on the ground of relevancy. The Court observed that once documents are brought on record in accordance with law, the Court is bound to follow the statutory procedure of calling upon the other party to admit or deny their genuineness.

Justice Mehroz K. Pathan was hearing a criminal writ petition challenging a Magistrate's order rejecting the accused's request under Section 294 CrPC to direct the complainant to admit or deny certain defence documents in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The accused sought to rely on documents such as a sale deed, a correction deed, and development permissions, arguing they were necessary for their defence, while the complainant opposed their relevance and alleged delay tactics. Although the Trial Court allowed the production of documents, it refused to compel admission or denial, citing lack of relevance.

The High Court examined Section 294 CrPC and clarified that it governs the procedure for documents placed on record, requiring the opposite party to admit or deny their genuineness, and noted that the provision does not bar filing documents at a later stage once they are properly brought on record.

The Court found that the Trial Court had already permitted the production of the documents, and therefore, there was no justification to refuse the second prayer under Section 294 CrPC. It held that the Trial Court had erred in entering into the question of relevancy at that stage and in failing to consider the mandatory requirement of calling upon the complainant to admit or deny the documents.

“… 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…”, the court observed.

The Court further observed that merely calling upon the complainant to admit or deny the genuineness of documents does not determine their admissibility or evidentiary value. The complainant retains the right to dispute the documents, and their relevance can be assessed at the stage of final adjudication. It was noted that the procedure under Section 294 CrPC is intended to avoid unnecessary delay and facilitate expeditious trial by dispensing with formal proof of documents where their genuineness is not in dispute.

It was further held that the use of the word “shall” in Section 294 CrPC indicates a mandatory obligation, leaving no discretion with the Trial Court in this regard.

Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 was quashed and set aside, and the Trial Court was directed to call upon the complainant to admit or deny the documents in accordance with Section 294 CrPC.

Case Title: M/s Ascent Ventures & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. [Criminal Writ Petition No. 79 of 2026]

Case Title: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 198

Click Here To Read/Download Order