IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA

th

ON THE 24 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 22288 of 2024 JAGDISH BAGHEL AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Mr. Vijay Dutta Sharma - Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Atul Kumar Sharma - Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.

ORDER Present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for setting aside order dated 13.05.2024 passed in Sessions Trial No. 250 of 2021 by learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Sabalgarh, District Morena, whereby, the application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. preferred by the informant party taking alleged medical documents on record was allowed.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that learned trial Court has erred in allowing the application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. without testing the authenticity and credibility of the said documents so annexed with that application. It is further submitted that even the discharge tickets which have been filed along with the application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. bears no signature and seal of the concerned doctor and it appears that these documents are manipulated for the reasons best known to the informant party. It is further submitted that during investigation, as other medical documents were seized by the investigating officer, therefore, there was possibility of even securing these documents as was ordered by the learned magistrate vide order dated 02.02.2021 on the application u/s. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. 1973 & even came on record as stated by the learned court of magistrate while declining to take cognizance of the offence u/s. 307 of IPC 1860 vide order dated 12.07.2021 and therefore, there was no occasion for the learned court below to pass the impugned order allowing the application u/s. 91 of Cr.P.C. 1973.

3. Learned court below in impugned order stated that documents as provided by prosecution relates to Kalpana Hospital, District Hospital Morena's discharge ticket & radiology reports. It is pertinent to submit at this juncture, that in reality it was the application of the informant party & these documents were tendered by the informant party & not prosecution and therefore, this finding of the learned court below is clearly perverse and against the record.

4. It is further submitted that the informant party if wanted to bring the said documents on record, then they will get opportunity at the time of leading prosecution evidence and to mark them exhibit & therefore, such an eventuality being in the eyes of law cannot be bypassed, wherein powers u/s. 91 of Cr.P.C. 1973 has to be exercised when the documents appears to be necessary or desirable for the purposes of trial & has to be summoned from the person in whose custody the same are believed to be, which would be Hospital in the present case, hence, where private party was giving documents, then the court ought to have verified or called the same from the concerned hospital, which could give credence to the documents, which has not been brought to light on any day, before the filing of the said application u/s.91 of Cr.P.C. 1973 by the informant party.

5. So far as the finding in relation to disputing the credit of the documents as well as to cross-examine the witnesses on the said documents by petitioners is concerned, it is to be placed before the Hon'ble Court that, prima facie there has to be an opinion on account of credibility of document and without applying the mind on the basis of the exponents as enshrined u/s. 91 of Cr.P.C. 1973, the impugned order has been passed. In such circumstances, impugned order deserves to be set aside.

6. Counsel for the State has supported the impugned order. It is true that the subject documents were not seized during the initial investigation; however, prima facie, they appear essential for the trial as they comprise the medical records of the injured party produced by the prosecution. As per the judgment in Raju v. State of M.P. [2014 (3) M.P.H.T. 23