Sudheer Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr
2022 Latest Caselaw 4708 MP

                              1
         THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    MCRC No.8820/2017
            Sudheer Singh vs. State of M.P. & Anr.

Gwalior, Dated : 01/04/2022

      Shri A.R. Shivhare, Counsel for the applicant.

      Smt. Anjali Gyanani, Counsel for respondent No.1/State.

Shri Pratip Visoriya, Counsel for respondent No.2.

This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed

for quashment of order dated 24.7.2017 passed by Additional

Sessions Judge, Sevdha, District Datia in Sessions Trial No.20/2016

by which the application filed by the applicant under Section 91 of

Cr.P.C. was rejected mainly on the ground that it has been filed prior

to framing of charge and the said application cannot be entertained

in the light of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of

State of Orissa vs. Devendra Nath Padhi reported in (2005) 1

SCC 568.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that it is true

that the application was filed prior to framing of charges but he

could have put certain questions to the witnesses in the cross-

examination on the basis of document sought by him and, therefore,

the application should have been allowed. In the alternative, it is

submitted that he may be granted liberty to file a fresh application

under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., so that he can prove his defence in

accordance with law.

Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the

counsel for the respondent No.1/State as well as counsel for

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.8820/2017 Sudheer Singh vs. State of M.P. & Anr.

respondent No.2.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The Trial Court while rejecting the application filed under

Section 91 of Cr.P.C. had observed that at the stage of framing of

charges, the Court is only required to consider the material relied

upon by the prosecution. The defence of the accused cannot be

considered. Thus, it is clear that the application was decided

primarily on the ground that it is premature in nature. The

desirability of the documents sought to be summoned was not

considered.

The Supreme Court in the case of Devendra Nath Padhi

(supra) has held that an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. can

be filed at the defence stage.

Accordingly, the submission made by the counsel for the

applicant that he may be granted liberty to file a fresh application

under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. appears to be bonafide and correct.

Since no jurisdictional error was committed by the Trial Court

in rejecting the application as premature in nature, therefore, the

impugned order is affirmed. However, it is observed that in case if a

fresh application is filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. for summoning

the documents, then the same shall be considered without getting

prejudiced or influenced by the impugned order.

It is made clear that this Court has not considered the

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.8820/2017 Sudheer Singh vs. State of M.P. & Anr.

desirability of the documents sought to be summoned by the

applicant and the same question shall be considered and decided by

the Trial Court while deciding the application.

With aforesaid observation, the application is disposed of.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge (alok)

ALOK KUMAR 2022.04.01 14:46:11 +05'30'