JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.

1. The petitioner by way of this petition has prayed to call for the record and quashing the order dated 3.4.2019 and allow the application dated 10.7.2018 moved by him under Section 91 Cr.P.C.

2. In short, the facts of the case are that a criminal complaint was filed by the respondent No. 2 at Police Station, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur, for offence under Sections 406, 120-B IPC and thereafter, a charge sheet in FIR No. 127/2007 has been filed by the Investigating Agency against the petitioner. Earlier the petitioner preferred a criminal misc. petition challenging the criminal proceedings in the said FIR, however, the same was withdrawn reserving right to file an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for summoning of record and documents.

3. Thereafter, an application was moved by the petitioner wherein he has stated that the ingredients of the complaint filed by the respondent mentions of a CD received from the accused. However, the complainant has stated in his FIR that he had prepared 118 colored photographs and 4 other colored photographs as a brochure and for the purpose of publishing the said brochure, he had prepared a design on the computer and after preparing its CD, he had given it to the accused petitioner for the purpose of printing to the Printing Press with a condition that the accused will not further publish those photographs and will delete the said print from his own computer. However, the accused has sold the said photographs to the Tourism Department and have published the same. In the application moved, the petitioner has prayed for obtaining the original print out, CD and the three photographs, which have been published by the Tourism Department so that the same can be verified from those which have been published by the Tourism Department. The application also mentions of procuring the hard disk which was taken by the Investigating Officer alongwith the complainant from the petitioner's computer for which the petitioner has already registered a case under Sections 211, 168 and 385 IPC against the concerned Nathulal Jewariya. The said application was considered by the trial court and vide its order dated 3.4.2019, the same has been rejected.

4. Learned counsel submits that the charges have already been framed in the order passed by the learned trial court rejecting the application stating that arguments raised therein relate to the issue of evidence. Thus, his application has wrongly been rejected by the trial Court. Learned counsel also submits that as same are in possession with the Investigating Officer and with the respondent in terms of Section 91 Cr.P.C., the same are required to be produced.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has submitted that cognizance has already been taken and charges have been framed against the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner had filed S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1571/2009 titled as Anil Roop Mathur v. State of Rajasthan, which was dismissed as withdrawn by the court vide order dated 6.7.2017 granting liberty to the petitioner to take up all the pleas available to them before the trial court. One of the condition mentioned in the said order was that he shall not delay or stall the trial proceedings. Thereafter, an application was moved by the petitioner on 8.3.2018 with a prayer to drop the proceedings as there was no ingredient under Section 406 IPC. However, the said application was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 19.11.2018. Now, the third application was filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C. which has been rightly rejected by the trial court as the petitioner is trying to delay the trial. It is also submitted that the petitioner had taken up the matter earlier before Supreme Court where it dismissed the petition of the accused petitioner on 27.4.2009 and 12 years have passed thereafter. Learned counsel for the complainant has relied on the judgment in Bhola @ Yadvinder Singh v. State of Ra