ORDER 1. This petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter, for short ‘the Code) is directed against order dated 27.3.2017 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas in Criminal Revision No.4/2017 (AnnexureP-1) and order dated 20.2.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dewas in Criminal Case No.2841/2014 (Annexure P-2). 2. The petitioner is being tried before the learned Magistrate in Criminal Case No.2841/2014 with regard to offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter, for short, 'the Act'). The allegation against the petitioner is that a cheque (No.183622) for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- issued by him was dishonoured by the banker stating “funds insufficient” and that, the amount under the cheque was not paid by him despite statutory demand notice. The petitioner at the stage of defence evidence, after seeking 7 adjournments to lead evidence, moved an application under section 91 read with section 245 of 'the Code' praying for summoning of the bank account opening form and details of the account held by the respondent-complainant in Bank of India. He also prayed that the account statement and the original cheque of his own account being operated in Bank of India Branch Dewas be also summoned because the respondent-complainant has encashed cheque bearing No.149966 for Rs.15,000/- which was issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent-complainant. 3. The learned Magistrate declined to accept the prayer holding that the petitioner simply wants to delay the proceedings because he has made a prayer in this regard after procuring 7 adjournments and that, the documents sought to be summoned are not relevant for deciding the controversy involved in the matter. The revision preferred against this order came to be dismissed vide the impugned order on the ground that the same is not maintainable. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though it is averred by the respondent-complainant that Rs.1,50,000/- was paid by him to the petitioner and that a cheque for Rs.1,50,000/- was issued by him, however, he (respondent-complainant) had no capacity to pay Rs.1,50,000/- and, therefore, copy of the bank account was relevant and was prayed to be summoned to demonstrate that he has no such capacity. It is further submitted that the respondent-complainant himself has obtained Rs.15,000/- by encashment of cheque issued by the petitioner, therefore, the question of lending money by the respondent complainant to the petitioner does not arise. The further submission is that the cheque in question was issued by way of security. 5. Per contra, supporting the impugned order, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that Hon'ble the apex Court has repeatedly stressed about expeditious trial and cases under section 138 of 'the Act'. The documents sought to be summoned are not at all relevant for the purposes of controversy involved in the complaint case. It is further submitted that the prayer to summon the documents was made after getting the matter adjourned at 7 occasions and, therefore, the learned trial Court rightly dismissed the application. It is further submitted that the learned revisional Court did not commit any error in dismissing the revision. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Section 138 of 'the Act' provides a special remedy in cases where the cheque has been dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds and the amount under the cheque is not paid within the statutory period despite demand notice. It has repeatedly been held by this Court and by the apex Court that to fasten the liability under section 138 of 'the Act', the necessary ingredients under section138 of 'the Act' have to be established. In the instant case, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the documents sought to be summoned are not relevant, appears to be in conformity with the record. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent complainant withdrew amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from his account to make payment of this sum to the petitioner, rather the complainant has deposed before the learned trial Court that amount of Rs.3.25 Lacs was received by him from his mother-in-law and that, from this amount, he had made payment of Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner issued a cheque of Rs.15,000/- and the same was encashed by the respondentcomplainant is not at all relevant or material with regard to the controversy in question. Therefore, no fault can be found with the order passed by the learned trial Court or the learned revisional Court. The fact that the petitioner issued a cheque of Rs.15,000/- and the same was encashed by the respondentcomplainant is not at all relevant or material with regard to the controversy in question. Therefore, no fault can be found with the order passed by the learned trial Court or the learned revisional Court. Further, it can be noticed that the petitioner after seeking as many as 7 adjournments for leading defence evidence, moved the application, obviously with a mala fide intention to delay the proceedings. 8. In Indian Bank Association and others v. Union of India, [ (2014)5 SCC 590 ], a case relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant, Hon'ble the apex Court has stressed about expeditious disposal of the cases relating to dishonour of cheque. In no eventuality, a party to proceeding under section 138 of 'the Act' can be allowed to frustrate the legislative intent with regard to expeditious disposal of cases under section 138 of 'the Act'. 9. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner referring to various parts of the testimony of respondent-complainant Raghunandan has tried to submit that the documents in question are required to substantiate the defence, however, considering the overall material available on record, the plea in this regard cannot be accepted. Therefore, this petition having no merit deserves to be and is accordingly hereby dismissed.