Section 91 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to compel complainants to produce documents for collecting defense evidence.

The applicant is the accused in Criminal Case No. 1573 of 2021 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

During the cross-examination of the complainant (PW-1), the applicant moved an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. (now Section 94 B.N.S.S.) seeking the production of specific documents mentioned by the complainant, arguing they were essential for adjudication

The Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar, rejected the application on 23.12.2025, a decision subsequently upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, in Criminal Revision No. 04 of 2026 on 25.03.2026

The applicant approached the High Court seeking the quashing of these orders

1. Whether the trial and revisional courts erred in rejecting the application for summoning documents under Section 91 Cr.P.C./94 B.N.S.S. on the grounds that a party cannot be compelled to produce documents to aid the adversary's defense

2. Whether the production of the requested documents was "necessary or desirable" for a just decision of the case under the statutory framework

Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/B.N.S.S.), which empowers a court to issue a summons for the production of documents deemed necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, or trial

The court relied on the legal principle that while Section 91 is a discretionary power used for a "just decision," it cannot be invoked by an accused to compel a complainant to produce documents for the purpose of a "fishing enquiry" or to collect evidence to fill lacunae in the defense

The Court examined the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which held that the documents sought were not requisite for substantiating the applicant's defense

The High Court reasoned that the power under Section 91 Cr.P.C./94 B.N.S.S. is not an absolute right of the accused but is contingent upon the Court’s satisfaction regarding the necessity of the documents for a just adjudication

The Court noted that the applicant was effectively attempting to compel the complainant to produce evidence to build his own defense case, which contradicts the principle that each party must independently establish its case

The Court found that the lower courts had assigned "cogent and valid reasons" and that the applicant failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error, perversity, or illegality in the impugned orders

Finding no grounds for interference under its inherent jurisdiction, the High Court dismissed the C-528 application and affirmed the orders of the trial and revisional courts

No order as to costs was made