Documents cannot be summoned under Section 91 Cr.P.C. at the charge framing stage unless they exhibit 'sterling quality'; evaluation of their relevance is reserved for trial.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 27th November, 2019 passed by the learned ASJ-02, (South), Saket Court, Delhi, dismissing the criminal revision petition No. 221/2019, filed by the petitioner against the common order dated 3rd May, 2019 passed by the learned MM-03(South), dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 91 Cr.P.C. and allowing the application under Section 302 Cr.P.C. moved by the complainant. The matter relates to FIR No.52/2016 registered under Sections 420/448/468/471/34 IPC at PS Neb Sarai.

2. The petitioner is an accused in the said FIR which is pending before the learned MM. The allegations against him are that he, along with the co-accused had forged documents being a Relinquishment Deed and a GPA in respect of property bearing No. E-29, Neb Valley, Sainik Farms, Delhi and on the basis of such documents had sought variation in the entries in the revenue records and had also cheated the complainant in order to grab her property. The chargesheet has been filed. At the time of hearing on charge, the petitioner filed an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C seeking directions to the Investigating Officer (I.O.) to produce replies dated 19th April, 2016 and 19th July, 2016 along with supporting documents which had been filed by the petitioner before the I.O.. Further directions were sought to take these replies and supportive documents on the record and make it part of the challan/chargesheet filed by the I.O..

3. Ms. Anu Narula, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the I.O. has mala fidely withheld those documents from the court as they had not been filed along with the chargesheet. It is submitted that the learned MM in its order dated 3rd May, 2019, very perfunctorily observed that the documents were not of sterling quality and the non-production of which would have a crucial bearing on the issue of framing of charge. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the application, it was urged that the documents sought to be brought on record were indeed of sterling quality as reflected from the contents of the replies dated 19th April, 2016 and 19th July, 2016, namely, proceedings in the civil suits including appeal, contempt notice etc. as also documents such as the Relinquishment Deed, revenue records, court orders, etc., i.e. a set of 10 documents.

4. As regards the impugned order of the learned ASJ dated 27th November, 2019, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was wrongly observed in Para No.6 of the impugned order that only copies of pleadings in civil suits and the appeal were sought to be filed by the petitioner whereas the written reply of the petitioner refers to ten documents and each of them ought to have been discussed by the learned Sessions Court to come to a conclusion about the sterling quality of those records. Thus, it was submitted that the impugned order be set aside.

5. Mr. Gaurav Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant, on the other hand, submitted that there was no error in the orders on facts as well as in law, as the documents relied upon by the petitioner could not be considered at the stage of framing of charge. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the judgements of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568 and in Nitya Dharmananda v. Gopal Sheelum Reddy, (2018) 2 SCC 93. It was submitted that unless the court was satisfied that the material sought to be summoned was of sterling quality, the defence had no right to invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C.

6. It was further submitted that there were many loose ends that cast suspicion on the documents on which the petitioner seeks to rely. In the first place, the name of the petitioner's grandfather is claimed to be Shobha Singh or Sobha Ram and the documents relied to compare signatures related to one, Sh. Shobha Singh Balhara