JUDGMENT

AMIT SHARMA, J.

1. The present petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 („CrPC‟) seeks the following prayers:

“(i) to call and examine the record of trial court and set-aside the impugned order dated 01.02.2019 passed by Shri Ajay Kumar Jain, Ld. A.S.J.-02, South District, Saket Court, New Delhi in the matter of State Versus Swatantra Kumar Jaysawal, bearing SC No. 49/2016, FIR No.

2038/15, U/S 498A/304B/306 IPC P.S. Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, OR (ii) any other relief which this Hon‟ble court may deem fit and proper, in the interest of justice.”

2. The facts of the case are that FIR No. 2038/2015 was registered under Sections 498A/304B of the IPC at PS Malviya Nagar, at the instance of petitioner no. 1, Sh. Tarak Nath Gupta who stated that his daughter was CRL.REV.P. 472/2019 Page 1 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RANJU BHALLA married to respondent no. 2, Sh. Swatantra Kumar Jaysawal in the year 2010. It was further alleged that thereafter, respondent no. 2 secured a good job in year 2012 and started harassing the complainant‟s daughter, as a result of which she committed suicide by hanging herself at Khirki Village on

25.10.2015.

3. During the course of trial of the aforesaid case, the petitioners, who are the parents of the deceased, during their cross-examination, were questioned about a telephonic conversation between them and their deceased daughter. The petitioners, in their examination before the learned Trial Court, denied to identify their voices. Subsequently an application was filed by respondent no.

2 under Section 91 of the CrPC seeking the following prayers:

“i. to summon the concerned nodal officers from telecom service provider company along with call details record, location chart and application form for the mobile numbers mentioned the para No.3 of the application and/or ii. Voice sample of deceased and her parents be taken through I.O. and send to CFSL/FSL for voice authenticity/analysis test for editing/tempering if any and/or iii. Any other relief or order which the Hon‟ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted.”

4. After hearing the arguments, the learned Trial Court, vide the impugned order dated 01.02.2019, allowed the aforesaid application by observing as under:

“Heard. These witnesses are confronted with voice recordings and transcriptions, however denied their voices as per recordings. The plea as raised through these recordings appears essential for just decision of case and it is also the duty of the court that true facts should come on the surface. In this scenario, 10 is directed to collect CDRs and above mobile numbers, if available from concerned service providers and further directed to take voice samples of PW1 and PW3 and send the same to CRL.REV.P. 472/2019 Page 2 of 15 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RANJU BHALLA CFSL/FSL with DVD on record, to analyse authenticity of the voices of PW1 and PW3.”

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that under Section 91 of the CrPC, the scope of power of the Courts is limited to issuing summons, production of any document or other thing that is necessary or desirable for the purpose of any investigation and the said section does not entail a power to direct any witness to give their voice sample for examination. Reliance was placed on Vinod Kumar and Ors. v. State, 19 (1981) DLT 390.

6. It was further submitted that there are no rules framed with regard to power of a concerned Court for collecting voice samples, as observed by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Pravinsinh Nrupatsinh Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, SLP (Crl.) No. 4693/2023 (judgment dated 15.05.2023). It was therefore submitted that the impugned order dated 01.02.2019 is not sustainable in law and liable to be set aside.

7. Per contra learned APP for the State, as well as counsel for the respondent no. 2 submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity