The need to summon third-party documents under Section 91, where secondary evidence is already available, is unnecessary and improper.

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed seeking the Court to set aside the order dated 17.02.2025 passed in Crl.R.P.No.70 of 2024 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District confirming the order dated 27.06.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.925 of 2023 in C.C.No.1306 of 2015 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Crl.R.P.No.70 of 2024 was filed by the petitioner/revision petitioner/complainant against the order dated 27.06.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.925 of 2023 in C.C.No.1306 of 2015 filed under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to summon certain documents from the respondent Nos.4 to 7 therein. The trial Court rejected the said application.

3. The appellate Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the said petition observing that the petitioner had moved application under Section 91 of CPC to summon the documents from the banks, which are not parties to the prosecution and that the revision petitioner did not state any reason to enable the court to come to a conclusion that those documents are required for the purpose of adjudicating the case before the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present criminal petition.

4. Heard Sri A.Rajashekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for the 1^st respondent-State and none appeared on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 7.

5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4 were business partners in M/s. Shanti Pharma Marketers, M/s. Shanti Marketers, and M/s. Sri Shanti Pharma Agencies. Disputes arose between them leading to the petitioner's retirement and subsequent legal cases. One such case is C.C.No.1306 of 2015, filed against respondent Nos.2 to 4 for various offenses under the IPC. After the retirement of the petitioner, respondent No.3 inducted respondent No.4, father of respondent No.3 as a partner in the place of petitioner. They continued the business, prompting the petitioner to issue a legal notice under Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act , on 11.02.2020, to the counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 requesting to produce original documents, including partnership deeds pertaining to the partnership firm. The respondents counsel replied to the said notice on 16.3.2020 denying possession of the documents sought. The petitioner then filed a petition under Section 91 Cr.P.C to summon banks (Respondent Nos.5 to 7) to produce documents related to the firms. However, the trial Court dismissed the petition on 27.06.2024, citing non-compliance with Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act ( Section 64 of BSA 2023). The petitioner appealed the dismissal in Crl.R.P.No.70 of 2024 before the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, which was dismissed on 17.02.2025, without adequate reasoning. The trial Court merely stated that the documents were not necessary without analyzing their relevance to the case. The Petitioner claims that the documents are privy to the parties and cannot be obtained under the Right to Information Act, as the banks are excluded from providing such information. As such, prayed to summon the subject documents for adjudication of trial.

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would contend that there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court and the trial Court rightly passed the order. Therefore, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

7. In light of the submis