ORDER :

1. This case was reserved for orders on 9-4-2021, but with effect from 14-4-2021, lock-down was imposed, consequently, this Court also remained closed and during the continuance of lock-down and closure of courts, summer vacation commenced with effect from 10-5-2021, therefore, the order is pronounced today i.e. 7-6-2021 after reopening of the court after summer vacation.

2. Proceedings of this matter have been taken-up through video conferencing.

3. The petitioner herein calls in question the notice/order dated 11-12- 2020 issued under Section 91 of the CrPC vide Annexure P-1 by which the Station House Officer, Police Station Sarkanda, Bilaspur – respondent No.4 herein, has asked the petitioner to produce certain documents within two days from the date of its receipt.

4. The aforesaid challenge has been made principally on two grounds that Section 91 of the CrPC is not applicable where the petitioner is alleged to be the prospective accused and neither there is enquiry nor there is trial or investigation initiated against him and therefore, Section 91 is not attracted.

5. Return has been filed by the State as well as the private respondents opposing the writ petition stating inter alia that the petition is merit-less and is liable to be dismissed.

6. Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that Section 91 of the CrPC is applicable only to investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code. Since neither investigation has been initiated against the petitioner under Section 2(h) of the Code nor there is any inquiry pending against the petitioner in terms of Section 2(g) of the Code and admittedly, there is no trial going on against the petitioner and it is also not the case that any FIR or criminal case has been registered against him, the notice impugned Annexure P-1 is bad in law. It is also argued that Section 91 of the CrPC is not applicable neither to the accused nor to the prospective accused in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Gujarat v. Shyamlal Mohanlal Choksi, AIR 1965 SC 1251.

7. Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, learned State counsel appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 4, would submit that on the report of respondents No.5 & 6, as a preliminary enquiry, notice under Section 91 of the CrPC has been issued to the petitioner in order to find out whether cognizable offence is made out against him and as such, enquiry is initiated against the petitioner, therefore, the petition has no force and it deserves to be dismissed.

8. Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.5 & 6, would submit that preliminary enquiry is permissible in terms of para 119 of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2014) 2 SCC 1, in order to find out whether cognizable offence has been committed or not by the accused person, and as such, it is not the case where notice under Section 91 of the CrPC deserves to be quashed.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the material available on record with utmost circumspection.

10. Section 91 of the CrPC provides as under: -

“91. Summons to produce document or other thing.—(1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend a