The right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution prevails over privacy concerns, necessitating the production of evidence under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for justice.

JUDGMENT :

(Kirti Singh, J.)

This petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing the impugned order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the learned trial Court in CRM No. 164 dated 23.04.2024 arising out of FIR No.119 dated 29.08.2023 under Sections 304-A, 427, 279 IPC registered at Police Station Goraya, District Jalandhar (Rural).

2. The brief facts of the present case are that allegedly the deceased persons were riding Activa scooter and a car, which was being driven by the petitioner, hit the scooter causing multiple injuries to the deceased persons who succumbed to the injuries.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and the complainant/first informant (respondent No.3) is a planted witness, who was not even present at the spot when the petitioner made call from his phone No.70152-17031 to the PCR to inform them about the accident and at 2.51 p.m. six calls were made by the petitioner to PCR regarding the accident. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of “Suresh Kumar Vs. Union of Inida, 2015 (3) RCR (Criminal) 340 and the judgments passed by this Court in “Paramjit Kaur Vs. State of Haryana, 2024 (1) RCR (Criminal) 104; “Gagandeep Singh @ Gagan Vs. State of Punjab 2022(3) RCR (Criminal) 540” and “Upashu Vs. State of Punjab, 2021(3) RCR (Criminal) 75”.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel while opposing the petition submits that production of call details and the tower location of the police officials would expose the secret informers, who help the investigating agency in intercepting the anti-social elements and these details cannot be made available for public in routine matter. It would put the witnesses in danger also and the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Phillaur has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner on cogent grounds.

5. Heard the rival submissions made by both the parties.

6. For proper adjudication of the issue, it would be apt to reproduce Section 91 Cr.P.C, which is as under :-

“91. Summons to produce document or other thing.

(1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order.

(2) Any person required under this section merely to produce a document or other thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed--

(a) to affect sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), or the Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891 (13 of 1891), or

(b) to apply to a letter, postcard, telegram or other document or any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authority.”

7. Preserving and requisitioning of the call details and tower location details would be necessary, otherwise the same would be lost forever. The right of accused to invoke the provisions of Section 91 Cr.P.C. for obtaining documents in support of his defence has been recognized by the Constitutional Courts. The legislative intent behind enactment of Section 91 Cr.P.C. is to ensure that no cogent material or evidence involved in the issue remains undiscovered in unearthing the true facts during investigation, enquiry, trial or other proceedings. No doubt while passing the appropriate direction for preserving and production of call details/tower location details under Section 91 Cr.P.C. would violate the right to privacy of the police offici