IMPORTANT POINT
The accused cannot be compelled to produce incriminatory documents based on his knowledge, as established by the interpretation of Section 94 of Cr.P.C. and relevant case laws.

ORDER

T. Madhavi Devi, J. - This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner against the order dated 10.01.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.46 of 2024 in Spl. S.C.No.09 of 2020 passed by the Special Judge for trial of Offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad.

2. The petitioner is the de facto complainant and respondent No.1 is the accused No.1 in Spl. S.C.No.09 of 2020. The offences charged against the accused No.1 are under Sections 376 (1), 417, 420, 379, 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C.') and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SCs & STs (POA) Act'). The trial in Spl. S.C.No.9 of 2020 has almost culminated and the matter was posted for judgment and at that point of time, the de facto complainant filed Crl.M.P.No.46 of 2024 in Spl. S.C.No.9 of 2020 under Section 311 read with Section 91 of Cr.P.C. and Section 15-A (4) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act seeking a direction to the respondent/accused to deposit his mobile phone bearing No.99858 61414 before the Court to forward the mobile phone to Cyber Mobile Forensic Unit FSL, Hyderabad to retrieve the messages sent by the respondent/accused and also to examine the service provider/Manager, Jio Mobile Services, Cyberhills Colony, P. Janardhan Reddy Nagar, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, to ascertain that the mobile connection bearing No.99858 61414 was allotted to the respondent/accused.

3. During the course of examination of PW.1, who is the de facto complainant/petitioner herein, she specifically stated that she received all the messages from the accused through his phone No.99858 61414, but the accused denied the same and gave a suggestion that the said phone number did not belong to him, but as per the Phone Pay App, the mobile bearing No.99858 61414 belonged to one P. Satyanarayana Rao i.e., respondent/accused No.1 in the above case and it is a prepaid connection and still the phone number stood in his name. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent/accused has opposed the said petition stating that the accused cannot be forced to submit his own mobile phone and that the accused cannot be made to give evidence against himself. He placed reliance on some case laws in his favour. After considering the contentions of both the parties, the Crl.M.P.No.46 of 2024 filed by the petitioner however has been dismissed. Against the said dismissal order, the present Criminal Petition has been filed by the de facto complainant.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above facts and submitted that it is a case where the accused has committed the offence of rape on the de facto complainant by promising to marry her and subsequently cheated her and refused to marry her on the ground that she belonged to S.T. caste. It is submitted that all the chatting and messages from the accused were through his Mobile with phone number No.99858 61414 only and it is for this reason that the mobile phone is required to be produced before the Court.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent/accused, however, vehemently opposed the same and relied upon the following case laws in support of his contentions.

i) State of Gujarat Vs. Shyamlal Mohanlal Choksi and another, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 41;

ii) V.S. Kuttan Pillai Vs. Ramakrsihnan and another, (1980) 1 SCC 264;

iii) A. Srinivasa Reddy Vs. State of Telangana, (2021) 4 ALD 291;

iv) Md. Ghouseuddin Vs. Syed Riazul Hussain and another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3315;

v) Copy of the order of a learned single Judge of A.P. High Court dated 01.11.2022 in W.P.No.28470 of 2021.

7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material placed on record, this Court finds that the petitioner herein is the de facto complainant and the trial has not only ended but is also at the conclusion stage, as per the direction