Crl.Misc.No.M- 31979 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M- 31979 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 1.11.2010 Rajinder Sharma ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Adarsh Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of order dated 4.10.2010 (Annexure P-7) passed by the trial Court dismissing the application filed under Section 294 CR.P.C. filed by the petitioner accused for calling upon the complainant for admission and denial of certified copies of plaints and judgment and decree and final order passed in civil proceedings arising out of the same controversy which is subject matter of FIR No.338 dated 18.3.1997, under Sections 420, 406, 506/120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Central Faridabad. Crl.Misc.No.M- 31979 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application filed by the petitioner under Section 294 Cr.P.C. for calling upon the complainant for admission and denial of certified copies of plaint and orders passed by the Civil Court was liable to be allowed. It was necessary for the Court to consider the said documents at the time of framing of the charge. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that no ground for interference by this Court is made out. It has been held by the Apex Court in State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi 2005 (1) RCR (Criminal) 297, wherein in para Nos. 23 to 25, it was held as under:- “23.As a result of aforesaid discussion, in our view, clearly the law is that at the time of framing charge or taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material. Satish Mehra's case holding that trial court has powers to consider even materials which accused may produce at the stage of Section 227 of the Code has not been correctly decided. 24.On behalf of the accused a contention about production of documents relying upon Section 91 of the Code has also been made. Section 91 of the Code reads as under:- “Summons to produce documents or other thing. - Crl.Misc.No.M- 31979 of 2010 (O&M) 3 (1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings under this Code by or before such Court may issue a summons or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power summons, or such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order. (2)............................................... (3)...............................................” 25. Any document or other thing envisaged under the aforesaid provision can be ordered to be produced on finding that the same is 'necessary or desirable for the purpose of investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code.' The first and foremost requirement of the section is about the document being necessary or desirable. The necessity or desirability would have to be seen with Crl.Misc.No.M- 31979 of 2010 (O&M) 4 reference to the stage when a prayer is made for the production. If any documents is necessary or desirable for the defence of the accused, the question of invoking Section 91 at the initial stage of framing of a charge would not arise since defence of the accuses is not relevant at that stage. When the section refers to investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings, it is to be borne in mind that under the section a police officer may move the Court for summoning and production of a document as may be necessary at any of the stages mentioned in the section. In so far as the accused is concerned, his entitlement to seek order under Section 91 would ordinarily not come till the stage of defence. When the section talks of the document being necessary and desirable, it is implicit that necessity and desirability is to be examined considering the stage when such a prayer for summoning and production is made and the party who makes it whether police or accused. If under Section 227 what is necessary and relevant is only the record produced in terms of Section 173 of the Code, the accused cannot at that stage invoke Section 91 to seek production of any document to Crl.Misc.No.M- 31979 of 2010 (O&M) 5 show his innocence. Under Section 91 summons for production of document can be issued by Court and under a written order an officer in charge of police station can also direct production thereof. Section 91 does not confer any right on the accused to produce document in his possession to prove his defence. Section 91 presupposes that when the document is not produced process may be initiated to compel production thereof.” In view of the decision of the Apex Court reproduced above, the petitioner could not be allowed to produce his documents at the stage of framing of the charge. At this stage, the Court is only required to see from the documents relied upon by the prosecution as to whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused or not for the purpose of framing of the charge. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court had rightly dismissed the application moved by the petitioner. No ground for interference by this Court is made out out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to produce the documents relied upon by him at the relevant stage during trial. (SABINA) November 01, 2010 JUDGE anita