Chattisgarh High Court
Prakash Narayan Pandey vs Anantram Mishra on 3 February, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:6046
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 2154 of 2024
Prakash Narayan Pandey S/o Late Dwarika Prasad Pandey Aged About
63 Years R/o Near Rambhatha Church, Raigarh, District- Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner
versus
1 - Anantram Mishra S/o Late Vishu Prasad Mishra Aged About 70 Years
R/o Ashok Nagar Bilaspur, Police Station- Sarkanda District- Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh.
2 - Praveen Mishra S/o Anant Ram Mishra Aged About 37 Years R/o Ashok
Nagar Bilaspur, Police Station- Sarkanda District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
3 - Vimal Mishra S/o Anant Ram Mishra Aged About 35 Years R/o Ashok
Nagar Bilaspur, Police Station- Sarkanda District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
4 - Smt. Shraddha Pathak W/o Sandeep Pathak Aged About 38 Years R/o
N. N. O. Block- C, Flat No. 304, Amlidih Raipur, Police Station- Rajendra
Nagar District- Raipur Chhattisgarh.
5 - Smt. Pratima Tiwari W/o Alok Tiwari Aged About 41 Years R/o Shanti
Nagar Sakri, Police Station- Sakri, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
6 - Smt. Urvashi Mishra W/o Anant Ram Mishra Aged About 61 Years R/o
Ashok Nagar Bilaspur, Police Station- Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh.
7 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station-
Kawardha, District- Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
(Cause title is taken from the CIS)
___________________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate
For Respondents No.1 to 6 : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate
For State-Respondent No.7 : Mr. Karan Bahrani, P.L.
___________________________________________________________
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma
Order on Board
03/02/2025
1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner under
Section 528 of the BNSS Act, 2023 being aggrieved by the
impugned order dated 10.07.2024 (Annexure A/1 Colly) passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Kawarda,
District Kabirdham (C.G.) in Sessions Case No.01/2023,
whereby an application under Sections 91 and 309 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 preferred by the
applicant/complainant has been rejected.
2. Brief facts of this case are that the complainant Prakash Narayan
Pandey solemnized marriage of his daughter/deceased-Surya
Pandey with accused Praveen Mishra on 06.07.2018 according
to social rites and rituals. At the time of marriage, the accused
got angry after seeing Apache motorcycle which was given in
dowry and he started to say that he had already demanded
Royal Thunder World Honda motorcycle in dowry. The
complainant and the prominent persons of the society requested
then the accused calmed down. But after the marriage, the
accused and his family members started to torture the deceased
by abusing and assaulting for demand of dowry. After the birth of
a girl child, the torture being given to the deceased by the
accused and his family members increased. Further, due to
which the deceased-Surya Pandey committed suicide by
hanging in her house at Kawardha on 14.06.2022.
3. The complainant lodged written complainant to the police, but
Police Station Kawardha lodged just only merg intimation No.
56/2022, but did not register FIR against the accused persons.
Then the complainant preferred written complaint a to
Superintendent of Police, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) on
20.06.2022, but this time also FIR was not registered.
Thereafter, the complainant filed WPCR/543/2022 before this
Hon'ble Court on 28.06.2022 and the case was listed for
01.07.2022. When the police came to know that
WPCR/543/2022 was listed on 01.07.2022, one day before on
30.06.2022, the police of Police Station Kawardha called the
complainant and said him to write afresh complaint. Thereafter,
registered FIR bearing Crime No.483/2022 for the offence
punishable under Section 304-B, 34 of IPC against the accused
persons. The complainant withdrew the WPCR/543/2022 on
01.07.2022 because of the police registered the FIR.
4. The charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons/non-
applicants No.1 to 6 and Criminal Case No. 4339/2022 was
registered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kawardha,
District Kabirdham (C.G.). It was triable by Sessions Judge,
therefore, it was committed and presently the case is pending
before the learned Additional Session Judge (F.T.C.), Kawardha,
District Kabirdham (C.G.) as Sessions Case No.01/2023 for trial.
5. On 10.07.2024, the complainant filed an application under
Section 91 and 309 of CrPC to produce a document first the
complainant filed a complaint on 20.06.2020 which was sent by
the registered post with acknowledgment and the call detail of
seized mobile of deceased at the place of incident {Realme
Company mobile handset mobile No.8103609897} and for grant
of stay of proceeding of the learned trial Court for examination of
the complainant and other material witnesses till disposal of this
application, but learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.),
Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) rejected the application
under Sections 91 and 309 of CrPC filed by the
applicant/complainant. Hence, this petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned
Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Kawardha, District
Kabirdham (C.G.) failed to appreciate the entire facts and
circumstances to consider the application under Sections 91 and
309 of CrPC for grant of stay of proceeding of the learned trial
Court for examination of the complainant and other material
witnesses. He further contended that a reportable judgment
dated 12.02.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Criminal Appeal No. 86/2024 arising out of SLP Criminal No.
3146/2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon the legal
preposition by the court in the case of Odisha Vs. Devendranath
Padhi, 2005 Vol.1 SCC 568 in which the 3-judges bench of the
Court has held as under :-
"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 reference to
the stage when a prayer is made for the production. If
any document 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 accused 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. Insofar 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
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 a 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."
7. Looking to the above mentioned facts and grounds and in view
of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the application under
Sections 91 and 309 of CrPC filed by the applicant/complainant
before the learned trial Court may kindly be allowed. It is,
therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Court
may kindly be pleased to allow this application and further be
pleased to quash/set-aside Annexure A-1 Colly., in the interest of
justice.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents oppose
the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that trial Court has rightly dismissed the application of petitioner
filed under Sections 91 and 309 of CrPC, which does not call for
any interference.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and
perused the impugned order passed by the trial Court and other
material available on record with utmost circumspection.
10. Considering the facts of the case, submission made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner and from perusal of the
impugned order, it is evident that after taking into consideration,
the learned trial Court has rejected the application under Section
91 & 309 of CrPC filed by the complainant on the ground that,
"on perusal of Sections 91 and 309 of CrPC under the
application submitted by the applicant, it is seen that the relief
sought by the applicant in the said application, in a way, the
earlier application submitted in respect of the same relief has
been rejected by the said court on the basis of merits and
against the said order, a petition has been filed before the High
Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, the same is pending. In the
case, the applicant had submitted an application for additional
investigation with the intention of summoning the documents
which were requested to be summoned under Section 91 of
CrPC, which has been rejected. In the light of the above facts,
there appears to be no proper basis for considering the
application submitted by the applicant."
11. Further considering the fact that the date of incident is
14.06.2022, with the flux of time as 2 ½ years have been
passed, it is not possible to make available the call details
desired by the petitioner.
12. Now with respect to the prayer under Section 91 of CrPC for
producing the letter dated 20.06.2022 addressed to the
Superintendent of Police, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) to register
the FIR against the accused persons and to read in evidence at
the time of marshaling of evidence during declaration of
judgment, this Court is of the considered opinion that the said
prayer of the petitioner is appears to be genuine and the same is
allowed and the trial Court is directed to call the aforesaid letter
dated 20.06.2022 from the Superintendent of Police, District -
Kabirdham (C.G.) and mark as a document.
13. With the aforesaid direction, the instant petition is partly allowed
and disposed of.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
Vasant
