THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.46 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed to set aside the order dated

17.12.2024 in Crl.M.P.No.184 of 2024 in C.C.No.215 of 2017 passed by the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kollapur (for short “trial Court”).

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

3. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that the orders passed by the trial Court are not based on sound reasoning and that the petitioner is not the custodian of the documents required to be produced and that he has taken specific plea in his counter to the petition, mentioning that the document is not in his possession but still the trial Court has ordered him to produce the same. He therefore, prayed to set aside the said order passed by the trial Court.

4. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that the main allegation is that accused No.1 has created the document i.e. by forging the signature of his son and that he has sold the property to accused No.2 and that accused Nos.1 and 2 are in possession of the document and that accused No.2 is not contesting the matter. He further submitted that accused Nos.1 and 2 are wantonly avoiding the judicial process. He therefore prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The record discloses that there is an injunction suit pending between respondent Nos.1 and 3 herein i.e. de facto complainant has lodged the suit against respondent No.3 herein. In the said suit, the petitioner is not a party. It is pertinent to take note of the fact that the petitioner who is the father of the de facto complainant is not made a party to the suit but the complaint is lodged by the same de facto complainant against his father and respondent No.3 herein alleging that the sale deed was executed by his father/accused No.1 by forging his signatures in favour of accused No.2. Based on the said complaint, C.C.No.215 of 2017 was registered. He has filed a petition vide Crl.M.P.No.184 of 2024 in the pending C.C.No.215 of 2017 under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to seek production of the document from the accused. The trial Court after hearing both the sides has allowed the said petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed by the accused No.1.

7. As mentioned above, the quash petitioner herein is the father of respondent No.1/de facto complainant. The main allegation itself in C.C.No.215 of 2017 is that the sale deed got executed by him forging the signature of de facto complainant.

8. Section 91 of Cr.P.C. is extracted herein for the sake of reference:

“91. Summons to produce document or other thing.—(1) 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.

(2) Any person required under this section merely to produce a document or other thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed—

(a) to affect sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of

1872), or the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 (13 of 1891), or (b) to apply to a letter, postcard, telegram or other document or any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal or telegraph authority.”

9. The learned Magistrate has allowed the petition by invoking the powers under Section 91 Cr.P.C. and there is