The court has the power to summon documents of sterling quality, even if not part of the charge sheet, if they are crucial for the issue of framing of charge. The accused cannot invoke Section 91 at the initial stage of framing a charge, and the court has the discretion to consider documents of sterling and unimpeachable quality.

1. This petition has been filed, aggrieved by the order passed by the learned I Additional Sub Court, Madurai (Campt at Melur) in Cr.M.P. No.367 of 2017, which was filed by the petitioner under Section 91 of CrPC, for the production of the Accident Register from Melur Government Hospital, dated 10.07.2016, the Accident Register from Appollo Hospital and also for the production of the First Information Report in Crime No.288 of 2016, which was filed against the petitioner by Melavalavu Poilce Station on 05.09.2016.

2. The above petition was filed by the petitioner when the discharge petition was pending adjudication before the Court below. The petitioner has sought for the above said documents on the ground that the de facto complainant was admitted in the Melur Government Hospital on 10.07.2016, in the morning and later he was sent to the Madurai Government Rajaji Government Hospital and the Accident Register of the Melur Government Hospital was not produced by the respondent Police. It is the further case of the petitioner that he also suffered injuries at the hands of the de facto complainant and he was admitted in Appollo Hospital at Madurai on 10.07.2016 at midnight for which an FIR in Crime No. 288 of 2016 was filed against the de facto complainant by the Melavalavu Police and therefore, both the Accident Register from the Appollo Hospital, Madurai and the FIR registered in Crime No.288 of 2016 are very essential while considering the discharge petition filed by the petitioner.

3. The Court below has dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner as an accused person cannot rely upon any other materials other than the one which has been filed by the Police along with the final report and the petitioner will have an opportunity to place all these materials during the course of trial. The Court below has also dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner is trying to protract the proceedings.

4. It is important for this Court to decide the question as to whether the accused person can invoke Section 91 of CrPC for the production of any document, at the stage of the Court considering the discharge petition filed by the petitioner. The normal Rule is that the Court at the time of considering the discharge petition is only supposed to look into the final report and the materials relied upon and filed by the prosecution and no more. All the materials which the accused person wants to rely upon, can be permitted to be done only in the course of trial.

5. There may be cases where certain documents which are very essential, ought to have been filed by the prosecution, is not filed before the Court along with the final report. Whether in such cases, the Court can order the production of those materials in exercise of its powers under Section 91 of CrPC, became a subject matter of discussion before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nithya Dharmananda alias K. Lenin and another Vs. Gopal Sheelum Reddy also known as Nithya Bhaktananda and another reported in (2018) 2 SCC 93.

6. The relevant portions of the above said judgment are extracted hereunder.

“3. Contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that the view of the High Court is contrary to law laid down by this Court in State of Orissa versus Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568 and reiterated in the subsequent decisions. The defence could not be considered at the stage of framing of charge so as to avoid a mini trial.

4. Learned counsel for the defence, on the other hand, submitted that if the investigator is not fair and the material of sterling quality, though seized during investigation and available with him, is deliberately left out from the charge-sheet, there is no bar for the court to summon the said material.

5. It is settled law that at the stage of framing of charge, the accused cannot ordinarily invoke Section 91. However, the court being under the obligation to impart justice and to uphold the law, is not debarred from exercising its power, if the