Order

1. Instant criminal misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 08.03.2022 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bilara, District Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.93/2020 (7/2020) whereby, the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present matter, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 388 of IPC and trial is going on before the learned trial court. He submits that during the course of investigation, hand-writing and signature of the deceased on the suicide note has been got compared with the writing of a register allegedly belong to the deceased. He submits that said writing available in the register is disputed and same cannot be admitted in evidence as same was in possession of the father of the deceased.

3. Learned counsel submits that in these circumstances, an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. submitted by the petitioner before the learned trial Court to summon answer-sheet of the examination papers of M.Com Final Year Examination-2017 conducted by Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur in which the deceased appeared and gave the papers. He submits that learned trial Court has erroneously dismissed the application observing that petitioner failed to mention the subject in his application. He submits that Section 91 Cr.P.C. provides that whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order.

4. Learned counsel submits that as per the language of the Section, the Court is empowered to summon such documents or thing, if same is necessary for just decision of the case and helpful in adjudication of the dispute. He thus, prays that the order impugned may be quashed and set aside and the instant misc. petition may be accepted.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. They supported the impugned order and submit that answer copies of the deceased written in the year 2017 are not available and therefore, Court has rightly refused to summon the answer copies of the deceased.

6. I have considered the submissions and carefully gone through the material available on record.

7. In my considered opinion, summoning of the answer-sheet of the papers written by the deceased during M.Com Examination in the year 2017 followed by its transmission to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for comparison of the handwriting and signatures of the deceased with those in the alleged suicide note, will in no way be prejudicial to any party to the current proceedings. Instead, this approach will greatly advance the cause of justice through the fair, impartial, and scientific assessment of the disputed document.

8. The proposed comparison by an expert would provide reliable and independent evidence regarding the genuineness of the handwriting and signatures, thereby assisting the Court in arriving at a well-reasoned and just conclusion. Ensuring that all relevant and material evidence is duly examined not only strengthens the adjudicatory process but also upholds the principles of natural justice and fairness.

9. It is not in dispute that the deceased appeared in the M.Com (Final Year) Examination, conducted by JNVU, Jodhpur in the year 2017 and gave the papers. The deceased's handwriting in the answer-sheets of the examination papers of