SUNITA GUPTA, J.

1. The challenge in this petition under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C’) is to the order dated 02.04.2016 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in case FIR No. 259/2013 under S. 509 IPC registered at Police Station Moti Nagar, Delhi whereby pursuant to the application moved by the respondent nos. 2 to 5, the SHO concerned was directed to supply certain documents to them.

2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner/complainant that pursuant to the complaint filed by the petitioner the FIR under S. 509 IPC was registered against the respondent nos. 2 to 5. A detailed report under S. 173 Cr.P.C was filed against the respondent nos. 2 to 5 on 13.01.2014. When the matter was pending for the purpose of framing of charges an application dated 25.11.2014 and a supplementary application dated 28.02.2015 were moved by the respondent nos. 2 to 5 seeking direction to prosecution to make disclosure to the effect that all relied/unrelied documents and statements recorded under S. 161 Cr.PC collected by the Investigating Officer during the investigation have been supplied to the accused persons and the prosecution be further directed to supply the documents which were not filed alongwith the charge-sheet but collected during investigation. Vide the impugned order, the application was allowed and the respondent no.1 was directed to supply the documents. Counsel further submits that while passing the impugned order, learned Metropolitan Magistrate overlooked the mandate S.91 of Cr.PC. It is settled law that S. 91 of Cr.PC cannot be invoked by the accused persons at the preliminary stage of framing of charge. Further if the statement has been reduced into writing under S. 161 (3) of the Code then statement of such persons as the prosecution proposes to examine as witnesses shall be given to the accused persons meaning thereby that in case persons are orally examined during police investigation and whose statements are not reduced into writing, no question of supplying copies of any such statement arise. Moreover, the accused is not entitled to all the statements recorded under S. 161(3) of the Code. He is entitled to only such statement of witnesses whom the prosecution has cited as witnesses. Reliance in this regard is placed on Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1 and State of Orissa v Debendra Nath Padhi, AIR 2005 SC 359.

3. The petition is contested by the respondent nos. 2 to 5 by relying upon Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma (supra); Ashutosh Verma v CBI, Crl. MC 79/2014 and it is submitted that the impugned order does not call for any interference. It is further submitted that the documents as directed to be supplied to the accused persons by the Court were not as per the mandate of S. 91 of the Code but under S.207 of the Code whereby the accused persons are entitled to receive the documents/statements whether the same are relied or not relied by the prosecution, collected and recorded during the course of investigation.

4. In order to appreciate the respective submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it will be in fitness of things to narrate the averments made in the charge-sheet filed against the respondent nos. 2 to 5.

5. It is averred in the charge-sheet that on 05.07.2013, the petitioner/complainant – Smt. Shashi Bala, Vice Principal of SBM Sen. Secondary School, Moti Nagar, Delhi made a PCR call vide DD NO.16A. During inquiry, she informed the Investigating Officer about the incident and handed over a written statement and told that she will submit a complaint on 06.07.2013 regarding details of circumstances and incident. On 06.07.2013, she filed a complaint at Police Station Moti Nagar, Delhi. On 08.07.2013, the same was received to the Investigating Officer for inquiry. In addition to this, he also received some reference on behalf of the management and staff regarding the incide