The inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly to avoid abuse and should demonstrate necessity for requisition of communications.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE nd ON THE 2 OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 34573 of 2025 MAHESH YADAV AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Prem Singh Bhadouria - Advocate for petitioners. Shri V P S Tomar - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.

ORDER This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners/accused challenging the order dated 08.07.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (O.A.W.) Gwalior in case No.181/2024 whereby application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. preferred by the petitioners for requisitioning the conversations held between the deceased and one Shubham through SMS, as well as the chats on WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger was rejected. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant petitioner that in the present case, the prosecution had produced the call details of the deceased, Ruchi Yadav, and Shubham (brother-in-law of deceased). On the basis of the said call details, it is revealed that the deceased, from her mobile number had conversations on different dates with Shubham on his mobile number, and they also exchanged SMS messages with each other through their respective mobile phones. It further appears that from 25.09.2023 until Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA the date of the incident on 26.09.2023, the deceased was in continuous communication through SMS, as well as via. WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger with Shubham and thereafter the deceased committed suicide. The call detail records of the mobile phones along with the charge-sheet were produced; however, the chats exchanged between them through SMS, WhatsApp, and Facebook Messenger were not produced. For the proper and just adjudication of the case, it is necessary and appropriate that the chat conversations between them be brought on record, but the trial court, contrary to law, has passed the impugned order on the petitioners' application under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is not sustainable. Thus, it is prayed that present application be allowed and the order dated 08.07.2025 be set-aside.

3. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for State has submitted that learned trial Court vide impugned order has held that though it is prayed by the accused persons for issuance of directions to the prosecutrix to produce the conversations between the deceased and one Shubham through SMS, WhatsApp, and Facebook; however, nowhere in the application it has been demonstrated as to why there is a necessity to requisition of such chats. Moreover, there is nothing on record on the basis of which it can be said that the said conversations through SMS, WhatsApp and Facebook chats are necessary in the interest of justice. Thus, no illegality has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order. Hence, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA record, this Court finds that the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. by assigning cogent reasons. The petitioners/accused failed to demonstrate any necessity or relevancy of the conversations allegedly held between the deceased and Shubham through SMS, WhatsApp, and Facebook Messenger for the just decision of the case. Mere assertion, without substantiation, cannot be a ground to requisition such private communications.

5. It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, only to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice. No such exceptional circumstance has been made out by the petitioners warranting interference with the impugned order.

7. Accordingly, this Court finds no illegality, impropr