Jitendra Jaiswal S/o Kishan Lal Jaiswal Aged About 36 Years R/o Q. No. B/1097 v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Of Ps Ajak Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:44390 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1653 of 2023 Jitendra Jaiswal S/o Kishan Lal Jaiswal Aged About 36 Years R/o Q. No. B/1097, Krishna Bihar Ntpc, Darri, Ps Darri, District Korba (C.G.) AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Of Ps Ajak Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Kumari Anita Sonwani D/o Punit Ram Sonwani Aged About 34 Years R/o Prem Nagar Ps Kusmunda, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s)
Legal Reasoning
this Court in the present appeal. Though, the OfÏce has time and again apologized before this Court for summoning the trial Court record without order of the Court, the Registrar (Judicial) is directed to ensure that no record shall be summoned, unless and until specific order has been passed by the Court, except in the appeals filed against conviction and acquittal as the present appeal has been filed against the impugned order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application preferred by the appellant under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. before the trial Court. 11. In view of the same, Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court within a period of three days from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil
Arguments
: Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Soumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Judgment on Board 01.09.2025 1. The appeal is directed against the order dated 03.11.2022 passed by the Court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Korba, District Korba, in Special Case (SC/ST) No. 38/2021, whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the application preferred by the 2 appellant/accused under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “Cr.P.C.”). 2. The appellant, accused for offences punishable under Sections 354, 509-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, seeks to challenge the said order on the ground that the learned trial Court did not assign adequate reasons while rejecting his application. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on the basis of a written complaint lodged by the victim on 01.11.2019, an FIR was registered against the appellant on 04.11.2019 under Section 354 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. During investigation, Section 509-B IPC was also added, and charge-sheet was filed on 29.09.2020. Thereafter, the appellant was granted bail on 30.07.2021. Charges were framed on 22.03.2022. Thereafter, on 28.06.2022, the appellant moved an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. seeking production of the complete Call Detail Records (CDRs) of the mobile phones of the victim and certain other persons, asserting that such records were material to establish his defence that he was falsely implicated in collusion with departmental ofÏcials. The learned trial Court, after hearing both sides, rejected the application on 03.11.2022, holding that the CDRs of other persons were not relevant or desirable for effective adjudication of the charges in the present case. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred this present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court 3 rejected the application without cogent reasoning, contrary to the mandate of Section 91 Cr.P.C. Further, the complete CDRs of the victim’s numbers 9340305158 and 9977957868 and the appellant’s number 7697938261 are essential to his defence. Also, suppression of such documents by the prosecution is against the principles of fair trial and natural justice. Reliance is placed on Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1, to contend that the accused has a limited but important right to seek disclosure of documents relevant to his defence. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the learned trial Court, after considering all the aspects, has rightly rejected the applicant preferred by the appellant under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. He further submits that the trial Court has rightly observed that the prosecution case rests upon allegations of outraging the modesty of the victim, both physically and electronically, and the additional CDRs sought have no bearing on the adjudication of those allegations. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the appeal. 7. Perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the learned trial Court rejected the application filed by the appellant under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C observing that Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. confers discretionary power upon the Court to summon documents if it considers them necessary or desirable for investigation, inquiry, or trial. The language of the section makes it clear that the power is 4 not absolute, but conditioned upon judicial satisfaction of relevancy and necessity. Further, the prosecution case, as reflected in the FIR and charge-sheet, pertains to alleged acts of outraging the modesty of the prosecutrix and making indecent remarks over phone calls. For this purpose, the investigating agency has already filed the call details covering the period 06.10.2019 to 24.10.2019, which includes the alleged date of occurrence i.e., 16.10.2019. The request of the appellant is to summon extended CDRs of several other persons, allegedly to demonstrate conspiracy. However, the learned trial Court held that such extended CDRs have no direct nexus to the charges framed against the appellant under Sections 354, 509-B IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act and the accused cannot compel production of documents which are not relied upon by the prosecution and which do not bear material relevance to the charges in question. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order passed by the trial Court, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the learned Special Judge does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference. The application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was rightly dismissed as being devoid of merit. 9. Accordingly, the criminal appeal stands dismissed. Trial court is directed to proceed in accordance with law. 10. Before parting with the case, it is observed that this is another case which has come up before this Court whereby, the trial Court record has been summoned by the OfÏce without there being any order of 5