The court upheld the trial court's discretion under Section 91 CrPC, affirming that only necessary documents for a just decision should be summoned.

ORDER :

Mr. Sudesh Bansal, J. - The matter comes up on an application for vacation of stay order dated 7-2-2024, however, with consent of parties, the matter has been heard finally on merits.

2. Instant Criminal misc. petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by accused petitioner challenging the order dated 5-11- 2022 in Case No.27/2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge & Metropolitan Magistrate No.12 Jaipur Metropolitan-II, whereby petitioner's application under section 91 CrPC has been partly allowed for production of CD only, and the request for summoning three photographs, documents of patent and copyright, brochure of Diwali and Dusshera and hard disk has been declined.

3. Facts of the case are that on filing a complaint, FIR No.127/2007 came to be lodged at PS Mahesh Nagar Jaipur for offences under section 406 and 120B IPC alleging therein that about 118 coloured photographs and 4 other coloured photographs as a brochure and for the purpose of publishing the said brochure he prepared a design on the computer and after preparing its CD the complainant provided to petitioner for printing in the press with a condition that the accused will not further publish those photographs and will delete the said print from his computer. However, the accused sold some photographs to the Tourism Department and published the same.

After registering FIR and conclusion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused and trial commenced.

4. During the course of trial the accused moved an application under section 91 CrPC on 10-7-2018 for production of original print out, CD and three photographs which were published by the Tourism Department. The said application was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 3-4-2019, which order was challenged by the accused by filing SB Cr. Miscellaneous Petition No.3542/2019, on the ground that the CD and documents relied upon by the complainant should be sent for investigation to the FSL, so that the accused can put his defence. The said petition was decided by this court on 27-1-2020, and while quashing the order of trial court dated 3-4-2019 remanded the matter to the trial court to pass a fresh order satisfying itself whether the material is available with the Investigator or with the concerned complainant in order to do complete justice and direct accordingly for procuring the said material as prayed by the petitioner.

5. On remand, the accused again moved application under section 91 CrPC for production of CD, photographs, documents of patent and copyright. Considering submissions of both parties, the trial court concluded that the incriminating material is the CD which was not produced with the charge sheet as the same was returned to complainant. Therefore the trial court vide impugned order dated 5-11-2022 directed for production of the CD. The prayer for production of other articles such as three photographs, documents of patent and copyright was rejected since these articles were not found necessary and desirable to be summoned. Therefore, instant petition has been filed challenging the order dated 5-11- 2022, to the extent of denial of prayer.

6. Counsel for petitioner has submitted that the petitioner's application under section 91 CrPC should be allowed in toto for production of all documents as prayed, because other materials are also essential documents for decision of the case. It has been submitted documents regarding patent and copyright of photographs possessed by complainant are necessary for decision of the case.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor and the complainant have opposed the submission of counsel for petitioner and stated that the trial court has properly considered the application of the petitioner under section 91 CrPC and has rightly exercised its jurisdiction by summoning only the CD. The prayer to summon other documents is mere based on assumption and the intention of petitioner accused is not fair but he is trying to delay the proceeding of present case, wh