G. D. Saxena, J. 1. This revision petition under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 is directed against both the orders dated 16th and 21st February 2012 recorded in Sessions Case No. 71/2012, by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior firstly thereby rejecting the application preferred by the petitioners under section 91 of Cr.P.C. and secondly after hearing the prosecution and accused, the charges were framed against all of the accused for commission of offence punishable under sections 365,366 506 Part-II of I.P.C. A charge for commission of offence punishable under section 376(1) of Cr.P.C. was also framed against accused-petitioner Shriram.

2. In short, relevant facts for adjudication of the matter are that on the day of incident, all the accused abducted knowingly or had reason to belief that the victim will be compelled to marry with accused Shriram or intercourse against her will or her wishes and after abduction confined her when she was wearing ornaments of gold and having cash of Rs. 20.000/-, in a secret place. It is alleged that thereafter, at Shivpuri, accused Shriram committed rape on her. It is further stated that all the accused criminally intimidated her to cause death of her brother and father. They also caused injuries by throwing Acid on her body. On the report lodged, an investigation was commenced. The victim was recovered and thereafter charge-sheet was filed. On committal, the trial is under progress.

3. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused is that all the accused are closely related to each other and are residing at different places. They are engaged in their separate business. It is contended that the victim went with accused No.1 as per her free will and lived with him in a different place. She willfully married to him. Their marriage was duly registered before the authorities at Gaziabad U.P. After recovery of the victim, she gave her statement before the I.O. on 23rd April 2011. It is submitted that the statement recorded on 23rd April 2011 of the victim was withheld by the I.O. and he did not file the same at the time of filing charge-sheet before the Court. It is contended that after 23rd April 2011, the victim was handed over in a custody to her uncle. At later stage of the investigation, the I.O. recorded her another statement which was against the accused and filed with the charge-sheet in the Court. It is further submitted that during trial, the petitioners/accused filed the application before the Court-below under section 91 of Cr.P.C. seeking direction to file all the documents collected during investigation as well as the statement of the prosecutrix dated 23rd April, 2011 recorded earlier by the I.O., which were necessary to prove the innocence of the accused before the Court, but their prayer was rejected by the learned trial Judge and the charges have been framed, hence, this revision.

4. Per contra, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State opposed the contention of the petitioners and by supporting the impugned order passed by the trial Judge contended that the order has been passed after due consideration on the documents filed alongwith the charge-sheet and after hearing the counsel for both the sides. Accordingly, it is prayed that the revision may be dismissed.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners/accused as well as the learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Also perused the petition and all the documents available with case diary.

6. At this juncture, it would be useful to reproduce section 91 Cr.P.C, which reads as is 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