Judgment : 1. This misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner u/S 528 of BNS challenging the order dated 16.10.2024 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar in case (CIS) No. 1945/2014 whereby the application filed by the accused petitioner u/S 91 CrPC for summoning the original ‘bahi’ from the complainant-respondent was dismissed. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 16.01.2025 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar in Criminal Revision No. 32/2024 whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 16.10.2024 was dismissed. 2. Considered the submissions and perused the material made available with the petition. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant respondent file a complaint against the accused petitioner for initiation of the proceedings for offences punishable u/S 138 of NI Act with regard to dishonor of a cheque issued by the accused petitioner in favour of the complainant respondent for amount of Rs. 6 lacs as against the alleged debt liability. 4. During the pendency of the complaint, the accused petitioner filed an application u/S 91 of CrPC for summoning the original ‘bahi’ from the complainant respondent. The complainant has stated that the accused petitioner has borrowed a loan of Rs. 6 lacs which was mentioned in original ‘bahi’ and therefore to ascertain the correctness of the allegations against the petitioner, the original ‘bahi’ be summoned from the complainant respondent. 5. The complainant respondent filed reply to the application submitted by the accused petitioner and stated that the original ‘bahi’ has been lost. 6. Learned Magistrate, taking into consideration the fact stated by the complainant in the reply to the application that the original ‘bahi’ has been lost, dismissed the application. The Revisional Court, considering the fact that original ‘bahi’ has been lost, also dismissed the revision petition. 7. Main submission of the learned counsel for the accused petitioner is that the allegation against the petitioner made by the complainant is that he has borrowed a loan of Rs. 6 lacs which was mentioned in the original ‘bahi’ and therefore the original ‘bahi’ is necessary to be summoned for certifying the allegation. 8. 7. Main submission of the learned counsel for the accused petitioner is that the allegation against the petitioner made by the complainant is that he has borrowed a loan of Rs. 6 lacs which was mentioned in the original ‘bahi’ and therefore the original ‘bahi’ is necessary to be summoned for certifying the allegation. 8. It has come on record in the form of reply by the complainant that the original ‘bahi’ has been lost and in such circumstances, the dismissal of the application made by counsel for the petitioner cannot be said to be bad. 9. Once it has come on record that the complainant has lost the original ‘bahi’, it would not be an appropriate order for directing the complainant to submit the original ‘bahi’ as the same will be ineffective. 10. This Court finds no ground to interfere in the order of Court below. 11. Accordingly, this misc. petition is dismissed. 12. Pending application/s, if any, also stands disposed of.