JUDGMENT :

Kirti Singh, J.

The present petition has been filed under section 482 CrPC for quashing of the impugned orders dated 29.04.2022 (Annexure P-3) and 20.09.2022 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Ld. Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Chandigarh in COMA/2/2021 titled as Gurbinder Singh vs. Megh Raj and others.

2. Succinct factual matrix of the present lis is that a complaint was moved by the respondent in the present petition under sections 17, 18 and 19, read with section 21 of POCSO Act, 2012, alleging that the respondents therein had failed to act and discharge their duties by shielding the aggressors, who allegedly committed the offences of sexual harassment and assault on the minor victim. The same was ordered to be registered as a private complaint by Ld. Judge, Fast Track Special Court. Thereafter, on an application moved by the respondent, at the stage of preliminary evidence, the official of CLTA in possession of the required documents was summoned with the said record in Court, vide the impugned order dated 29.04.2022. The petitioner, being the Manager of the Association, objected to the same and moved an application under section 162 of Indian Evidence Act, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 20.09.2022. Hence the present petition.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner, being the dealing person, i.e., Manager (Administration) CLTA, has been summoned vide impugned order dated 29.04.2022 to produce the records as applied for by the respondent in his complaint. The contention that he has advanced is that the since the respondent has filed the complaint against the officials of CLTA also, including the computer operators and record keepers, therefore, he being the Manager, is also one of the accused, and therefore cannot be summoned as a witness vide the impugned order. The second pillar of his argument is that the petitioner, being an accused, cannot be compelled to produce documents against himself, by virtue of the constitutional safeguard of right against self incrimination guaranteed to him under Article 20(3). The third contention put forth is that the records that the petitioner has been summoned to furnish are not relevant to the present case and are in fact privileged documents of the association. It is therefore contended that the impugned orders deserve to be quashed. To buttress his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on judgments passed in 'State of Gujarat Vs. Shyamlal Mohanlal Choksi', AIR 1965 SC 1251; 'Y.Sivaramakrishnaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh', 2018 SCC Online Hyd 722 and 'Nandini Satpathy Vs. P.L.Dani', (1978) 2 SCC 424.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the petitioner in the present lis is neither an accused in the complaint, nor has been summoned by name as a witness by way of the impugned order. It is only the concerned clerk/ record keeper of the association who has been called to present certain records pertaining to the in in-house enquiry conducted with regard to sexual harassment of the minor victim and financial records of the association, among others. The objection under Section 162 of Indian Evidence Act raised by the petitioner has also been dealt with and rejected by the learned Special Court vide the impugned order dated 20.09.2022. Hence, since neither the petitioner, nor the association of which he is an employee, are accused, thus they are not covered by the protection accorded by Article 20(3) of the Constitution, a contention which has been advanced by the petitioner counsel. Therefore, the present petition does not stand any ground and is liable to be dismissed. To fortify his submissions, learned counsel places reliance on 'State of Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad', AIR 1961 SC 1808.

5. Heard learned Counsel on either side and perused the case file.

ANALYSIS RE: LAW

6. At the outset, it would be apposite to first discuss the procedure, as contained in the provisions of CrPC, to be f