Advocates appeared:
Mr. Surya Narayan Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Raman Yadav, Mr. Hemant Kumar, Mr. Charanpreet Singh, Ms. Akriti Chaturvedi and Mr. Priyam Kaushik, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Satish Kumar, APP, for the State with SI Bharti Dhondiyal, P.S. Anand Vihar.
Mr. Manoj Taneja, Mr. Amit Chadha and Ms. Swati Chawla, Advocates, for R2/Complainant alongwith R-2/Complainant in person.

The legal decision outlined in the document primarily addresses the nature and maintainability of an application filed under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The court determined that such an application, which seeks the production or preservation of documents or records, is an interlocutory order, meaning it is a procedural step that does not decide on the substantive rights of the parties involved (!) (!) .

The court emphasized that at the stage when the application was filed—before the investigation was complete, and before the cognizance of the offence was taken—the order passed by the lower court was not final but procedural. Therefore, any revision against this order was not maintainable, as revision is generally barred against interlocutory orders that do not affect the core rights or liabilities of the parties (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the court clarified that orders under Section 91 Cr.P.C. can be passed at any stage of the proceedings, including investigation, inquiry, or trial, provided they are necessary or desirable for the case (!) (!) . However, such orders should not interfere with the rights of the parties in a manner that could affect the course of justice or the trial itself, especially when the investigation is still pending and the charges have not been framed (!) (!) .

The court also highlighted the importance of procedural fairness, noting that the order passed by the lower court did not provide notice or an opportunity to affected parties, including the complainant, which was considered a procedural error (!) (!) .

Based on these principles, the court held that the order passed by the lower court allowing the application under Section 91 was legally flawed because it was made at a stage when the investigation was ongoing and before the accused had been summoned or charges framed. Consequently, the revision filed against this order was not maintainable, and the order was set aside (!) (!) .

The court concluded that while the order under Section 91 Cr.P.C. is generally interlocutory, parties are always free to approach the court again at an appropriate stage with a proper application, ensuring procedural fairness and compliance with legal standards (!) .