Chattisgarh High Court

Suresh Chandravanshi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 April, 2025

                                                             1




                                                                                 2025:CGHC:15820

                                                                                                 NAFR

                                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                                CRMP No. 1191 of 2025

                      1 - Suresh Chandravanshi S/o Krishna Chandravanshi Aged About 45
                      Years R/o Kanabhaira, P.S. Pipariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

                      2 - Naresh Chandravanshi S/o Krishna Chandravashi Aged About 42 Years
                      R/o Kanabhaira, P.S. Pipariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

                      3 - Sunil Chandravanshi S/o Suresh Chandravanshi Aged About 22 Years
                      R/o Kanabhaira, P.S. Pipariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

                      4 - Vikki Chandravanshi S/o Naresh Chandravanshi Aged About 19 Years
                      R/o Kanabhaira, P.S. Pipariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

                      5 - Jitendra Chandravanshi S/o Baldau Chandravanshi Aged About 23
                      Years R/o Kanabhaira, P.S. Pipariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

                      6 - Baldau Chandravanshi S/o Kangla Chandravanshi Aged About 60 Years
                      R/o Kanabhaira, P.S. Pipariya, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

                                                                                          ... Petitioners

                                                          versus

                      1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Though P.S. Pipariya, District Kabirdham
                      Chhattisgarh.

                      2- Station House Officer, P.S. Pipariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh

                      3- Superintendent of Police, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh

                                                                                         ... Respondents

VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN (Cause title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioners : Mr. Shivam Agrawal, Advocate

For Respondents/State : Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Deputy Advocate General

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board

03/04/2025

1. Present is a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioners

under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

against the impugned order dated 08.01.2025, passed by learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirdham, in Sessions Case No. 67 of

2023, whereby an application filed by the petitioners under Section

94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been

dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners are the accused

persons in the Sessions Trial No. 67 of 2023, pending before the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirdham. It is alleged against

the accused persons that on 29.08.2023, at about 12:00 in the noon,

they committed murder of the deceased Gendram Yadav. The

accused persons have taken defence that they were not present on

the spot at the time of incident and the accused Suresh

Chandravanshi had gone to village Indauri from Patharra to take

centering material, the accused Naresh Chandravanshi had gone to

village Jhalmala and returned on the next day, the accused Sunil

Chandravanshi had gone to his matrimonial house at village

Chacheri to left his wife for Rakshabandhan festival, the accused

Jitendra Chandravanshi had gone to village Vicharpur to take

Ayurvedic treatment of fracture of his hand, the accused Vicky

Chandravanshi was working in his house, the accused Baldau was

working in his field along with his other family members. It is also

averred in the application that they have tried to obtain their call

details report from the service provider of mobile company, but they

denied to give their call detail report. The accused persons are

required their call detail report in their defence and proved their

location at the time of alleged incident an therefore, the prosecution

may be directed to produce the call details and location report of the

mobile phones of the accused persons.

3. The accused persons have filed their application under Section 94 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding Section

91 of CRPC) on 10.09.2024. The said application was decided on

08.01.2025 and the learned trial Court has dismissed the application

holding that the application cannot be allowed to collect evidence and

under Section 94 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

(Section 91 of CRPC) can be entertained only with respect to the

documents, which are in possession of the prosecuting agency. The

said order dated 08.01.2025 is under challenge in the present

petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the

prosecution agency is under bounden duty to place documents and

submit the same in compliance of Section 173 of CRPC. The

prosecution agency cannot withheld any material fact or evidence,

which accrues in favour of the accused and such withholding cannot

be fair and would be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The

accused persons are deprived from fair trial. Relying upon the

judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of

"Varsha Garg v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others" 2022 SCC

Online SC 986 and order dated 08.04.2022, passed by coordinate

Bench of this Court in CRMP No. 501 of 2022 (Royden Harold

Buthello v. State of Chhattisgarh), he prayed for the relief as

claimed in the petition and direction to the respondents to submit the

call detail reports and location pertaining the mobile numbers of the

accused persons as mentioned in the application.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and has

submitted that the order passed by the learned trial Court is

absolutely justified. Section 94 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 is provided only with respect to the documents which

are available with the prosecuting agency, but the documents which

are not the part of the investigation, cannot be directed to produce in

the case or to supply to the accused persons, even the investigation

cannot be directed to be in particular manner. The petitioners are

claiming the investigation in a particular direction, which cannot be

ordered in the present case. The application cannot be entertained to

collect the evidence, therefore, the impugned order is justified and

does not warrant any interference.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

materials annexed with the petition.

7. From perusal of the application filed by the petitioners on 10.09.2024,

which is made as a part of the present petition as Annexure P-2, it

reflects that the petitioners are claiming for calling the call details

report of the mobile phones of the accused persons for the month of

August, 2023. The said call details report is not the part of the charge

sheet and from the order impugned it also reflects that there is no

investigation with respect to the said call details. It is the defence

taken by the accused persons during the cross-examination of the

prosecution witnesses. During the investigation, the prosecution

agency has find the sufficient evidence against the petitioners/

accused persons and has filed the charge sheet and during the trial

of the case the accused persons claiming for filing of the call details

report of their mobile phones, which is not the part of the charge

sheet or even not available in the case diary as there is no

investigation to that effect.

8. In the matter of "Popular Muthiah v. State Represented by

Inspector of Police" 2006 (7) SCC 296, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Para 48 has observed that:-

"48. The High Court while passing the impugned

judgment did not bear the said principles in mind. It

went beyond its jurisdiction in directing the

prosecution of the Appellant before us. In a case of

this nature, where a superior court exercises its

inherent jurisdiction, it indisputably should remind

itself about the inherent danger in taking away right of

an accused. The High Court should have been

circumspect in exercising the said jurisdiction. When

a power under sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure is exercised, the court

ordinarily should not interfere with the statutory

power of the investigating agency. It cannot issue

directions to investigate the case from a particular

angle or by a particular agency. In the instant case,

not only the High Court had asked reinvestigation into

the matter, but also directed examination of the

witnesses who had not been cited as prosecution

witnesses. It furthermore directed prosecution of the

Appellant which was unwarranted in law."