ORDER :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Can a summons to produce a document as contemplated under Section 91(1) of the CrPC be issued to a person accused of an offence standing investigation calling upon him to produce documents considered necessary and desirable for the purpose of investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is the short question involved in this batch of two writ petitions.

2. Since common question of fact and law is involved in both the writ petitions, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. The two writ petitioners being daughter and father have been subjected to first information report by the complainant and against them an offence under Sections 420, 409 & 120B of the IPC has been registered by Police Station Telibandha, Raipur. During the course of investigation, they have been subjected to notice dated 13-5-2022 (Annexure P-3) under Section 91 of the CrPC for production of 21 documents and other information to which the two writ petitioners have replied separately vide Ex.P-4 stating that since they are standing investigation for the aforesaid offences, they are protected against self-incrimination by constitutional and legal right guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and therefore notice under Section 91 of the CrPC be dropped against them. Thereafter, again, notice dated 28-5-2022 (Annexure P-5) was issued stating that non-compliance of notice under Section 91(1) of the CrPC would be non-compliance of the order of anticipatory bail granted to them on 21-3-2022 and therefore the documents as desired be submitted and they should appear before the Station House Officer, Police Station Telibandha, Raipur for recording their statements.

4. The aforesaid two notices dated 13-5-2022 (Annexure P-3) & 28-5-2022 (Annexure P-5) have been called in question by way of these writ petitions preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India principally on the ground that invoking Section 91(1) of the CrPC directing the petitioners to produce documents would be violative of their right to remain and maintain silence during investigation which is the guaranteed constitutional and legal right under Article 20(3) of the Constitution and the petitioners cannot be compelled to be a witness in their own cause and as such, the notices issued directing production of documents deserve to be quashed.

5. Return has been filed by the State stating inter alia that the notices issued by the Station House Officer requiring the petitioners to produce documents are in accordance with law. It has also been submitted that after completion of due investigation, charge-sheet dated 19-7-2022 under final report has also been filed against the accused persons including the petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 120B, 201, 467, 468 & 471 of the IPC. No rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the petitioners.

6. Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that offences under Sections 420, 409 & 120B of the IPC have already been registered against the petitioners, they were facing investigation at particular point of time and notices Annexures P-3 & P-5 are violative of the right to maintain silence during the investigation being the guaranteed legal right under Article 20(3) of the Constitution and the petitioners cannot be compelled to be witnesses in their own case. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Gujarat v. Shyamlal Mohanlal Choksi, AIR 1965 SC 1251 to buttress his submission that the provisions contained in Section 91 of the CrPC are not applicable to the petitioners who are accused of the offences under Section 420, etc., of the IPC and therefore notices Annexures P-3 & P-5 deserve to be quashed.

7. Mr. Sudeep Verma, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State / respondents, would submit that the petitioners are bound by