1. This Crl.MC is filed aggrieved by the summons issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, invoking S.91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, calling upon the petitioner to produce the minutes of Kerala Rubber and Reclaims Limited, Carmel Center, Banerjee Road, Kochi - 18, for the period from 01/04/2003 to 31/03/2011. The impugned summons was issued during an inquiry by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under S.202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. A case was registered on the same set of facts by Ernakulam Central Police Station as Crime No.1724/2011. The offences alleged in the said crime were under S.403, S.405, S.406, S.415, S.417, S.418 and S.420 read with S.120(B) of the IPC. The police, after investigation, filed a refer report which is produced as Annexure A along with the Crl.M.C. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent filed Annexure B protest complaint. The learned Magistrate proceeded to conduct inquiry under S.202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of Annexure B. During the inquiry, a petition was filed by the complainant on 28/09/2019 under S.91 of the CrPC, praying for a direction to the petitioner to produce the documents mentioned above. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the said application and issued summons which is under challenge in this Crl.M.C. It is contended by the petitioner that directing the accused to produce documents, invoking S.91 of the CrPC, is impermissible. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on an order of the Division Bench of this Court in P.Gopalakrishnan Nayanar v. Sasidharan Nambiar, reported in (1996 (1) KLT 83).

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further elaborated that directing an accused to produce documents invoking S.91 of CrPC is impermissible in view of Art.20(3) of the Constitution. He submitted that Kerala Rubber and Reclaims Ltd. is arrayed as the 4th accused in the Crl.M.P. filed by the party respondent. He pointed out that Annexure - E summons was addressed to the Managing Director of the company arrayed as the 4th accused. It was also pointed out that the Managing Director has been arrayed as an accused in her personal capacity also in Annexure B complaint. The court issued the summons without any application of mind and at the stage of inquiry under S.202 of CrPC the court is required only to go to the complaint / objection, the sworn statements and the documents produced in support of the complaint and nothing more. The learned counsel further submitted that arraying a person as accused in the complaint, which is under consideration in an inquiry under S.202 of CrPC, is sufficient to attract Art.20(3) of the Constitution. He therefore prayed that the summons be quashed.

4. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the summons issued by the trial court is perfectly legal and there is no ground to set aside the same. Annexure E summons was issued only for production of the minutes of the meeting of the company. It is not for the purpose of appearance of anyone before the court or to tender evidence by deposing. A court conducting inquiry under S.202 of CrPC has the authority to direct production of documents to arrive at proper conclusions. The learned counsel relied on the following judgments: -
1. Balasaheb @ Ramesh Laxman Deshmukh v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (AIR 2011 SC 304);
2. Ramanlal Bhogilal Shah and Anr. v. D.K.Guha and Ors. (1973 (1) SCC 696);
3. T. R. Ajayan v. M. Ravindran (2008 (1) KHC 565).

5. On facts, it is clear that Annexure - E summons was issued to the Managing Director of the Company which has been shown as the 4th accused in Annexure - B complaint / objection. The Managing Director has also been arrayed as the 3rd accused in her personal capacity. Therefore, the issue to be considered is the legality and propriety of issuing summons under S.91 of the CrPC to the Managing Director of the company for production of documents.

6. In the decision cited by the learned counsel for the pet