ORDER :

1. Challenge in this petition is to order dated 24.05.2022, passed in Criminal Case No. 3666 of 2020, whereby learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application filed by petitioner under Section 91 of Cr.P.C.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that a criminal case is pending consideration before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur against petitioner along with two others for offence under Section 294, 323, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. During pendency of criminal proceeding, petitioner filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. for issuance of summons for production of document before the Court from the office of Superintendent of Police. He contended that with regard to the incident initially one enquiry was conducted, which was partial and therefore, appeal was filed before Senior Superintendent of Police, which came to be dismissed and the said report was essential for the decision of criminal proceeding. However, without considering the importance of document, leaned Court below dismissed the application only on the ground that the case is at the stage of framing of charge.

3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and submits that learned Court below passed the detailed order assigning reason for rejecting the application submitted by petitioner. The provision under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. provides that if the Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable then the Court may issue summons or an order to the persons in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be. There is no error in the order impugned.

4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record along with the petition.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner along with the petition has not placed on record the copy of application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. filed before the Court below. Only the written argument raised by learned counsel for petitioner before the trial Court is placed on record as Annexure A-2. Copy of order is Annexure A-1. Learned Court below observed that for producing evidence in defence, it is for the defence itself for defending the charges or the criminal case registered against accused persons, proper opportunity to be given under the provisions of the Code of Cr.P.C.. For producing any documents as an evidence in defence can not be ordered. Petitioner has moved an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., before learned Court below at the stage of framing of charge. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge, the defence of accused can not be put-forth. Permitting accused to adduce his defence at the stage of framing of charge is against the criminal jurisprudence. The necessity or desirability of production of documents has to be seen with reference to stage when a prayer is made for production. The question invoking Section 91 of Cr.P.C. at the initial stage of framing of charge would not arise because the defence of accused is not relevant at that stage. Section 91 of Cr.P.C. provides for summoning and production of documents as may be necessary at any stages and the entitlement of accused to seek an order under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. will ordinarily come at the stage of his defence.

6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, reported in AIR 2005 SC 359 has observed in para 25 and 27, which is 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