Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Akhilesh Singh, filed a criminal complaint against his uncle Chandrabali Singh, respondent Harikesh Singh, and one Naeem Ansari for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Kherwadi Police Station, alleging that after his father's death, the accused forged stamp papers and signatures to obtain an electric connection from Reliance Company in their names. During the trial, the complainant (respondent no.1) filed an application under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking production of documents from the petitioner, including the complaint, FIR, charge-sheet, and other documents already on record. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate allowed the application, and the revisional court confirmed that order. The petitioner challenged these orders in the High Court. The High Court held that the application under Section 91 CrPC was vague and did not specify the documents required or their relevance. The court noted that the documents sought were already part of the judicial record and the application lacked specificity. Consequently, the High Court quashed the orders of both the Magistrate and the revisional court, allowing the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 91 - Production of Documents - Vague Application - The application under Section 91 CrPC must specify the documents required and show their relevance to the case. A general and vague application seeking all documents without specificity cannot be allowed. The revisional court erred in confirming such an order. (Paras 4-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order passed by the learned Magistrate allowing the application under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code for production of documents was legal and proper.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the order dated 16/01/2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and the order dated 16/01/2018 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate allowing the application under Section 91 CrPC.
Law Points
- Section 91 CrPC requires specificity and relevance
- vague applications for document production cannot be allowed
- revisional court's order confirming such application is unsustainable
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (07) 129
Criminal Writ Petition No.1062 of 2019
Mr. Rajesh Singh a/w Ms. Priti R Mahajan, Mr. Rahul Singh and Mr. Amit Jalgaonakar for the Petitioner; Mr. Kalpnath H Giri a/w Ms. Geeta Tripathi and Ms. Dhinika Shah for Respondent No.1; Mr. N B Patil, APP for Respondent No.2/State
Mr. Akhilesh S/o. Suryabali Singh
Mr. Harikesh S/o. Chandrabali Singh, The State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging the order allowing application under Section 91 CrPC for production of documents.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 16/01/2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge confirming the order dated 16/01/2018 of the Metropolitan Magistrate allowing the application under Section 91 CrPC.
Filing Reason
The petitioner alleged that the application under Section 91 CrPC was vague and sought irrelevant documents already on record.
Previous Decisions
The learned Metropolitan Magistrate allowed the application under Section 91 CrPC on 16/01/2018, and the revisional court confirmed that order on 16/01/2019.
Issues
Whether the application under Section 91 CrPC was vague and lacked specificity.
Whether the documents sought were relevant to the case.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the application under Section 91 CrPC was vague and sought documents already on record.
The respondent argued that the documents were necessary for the defence.
Ratio Decidendi
An application under Section 91 CrPC must specify the documents required and demonstrate their relevance to the case. A vague application seeking all documents without specificity cannot be allowed.
Judgment Excerpts
The application under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code was vague and did not specify the documents required or their relevance.
The documents sought were already part of the judicial record and the application lacked specificity.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a complaint leading to FIR No.191 of 2011. During trial, the complainant filed an application under Section 91 CrPC which was allowed by the Magistrate on 16/01/2018. The petitioner filed Criminal Revision Application No.320 of 2018 which was dismissed on 16/01/2019. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 420, 467, 468, 471, 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 91
