The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has quashed a criminal complaint and a subsequent process-issuing order against Jaydeep Singh Jadeja, ruling that the local Crime Branch acted beyond its legal authority by invoking Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) during a preliminary verification. Justice Rajnesh Oswal, presiding over the case, held that the statutory power to compel the production of documents or things is strictly limited to formal investigations, inquiries, or trials, and cannot be extended to the preliminary stage of checking the veracity of allegations.

The legal challenge stemmed from a complaint filed by one Mohd. Shafiq Sohil, who alleged that Jadeja, acting as the Director of M/s Ashpura Road Lines, had defrauded him of ₹40 lakh in a sub-contracting deal related to the EPC-mode construction of a section of National Highway-44. Following the receipt of this complaint, the Crime Branch initiated a preliminary verification. During this process, the agency issued multiple notices to Jadeja under Section 91 CrPC, demanding the production of specific company records and his personal appearance. When Jadeja failed to comply, the Crime Branch instituted a complaint against him for an offense under Section 175 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to the omission to produce a document or electronic record to a public servant by a person legally bound to produce it.

Limitations of Investigative Powers

The High Court’s intervention focused on whether the investigating agency could legally compel a potential suspect to provide documents before a formal First Information Report (FIR) had been registered or an inquiry formally initiated. Justice Oswal observed that Section 91 CrPC serves as a specific tool for the state to secure evidence, but it remains tethered to the existence of a formal legal proceeding. The Court noted that the term "other proceeding" within the section must be construed ejusdem generis —limited by the context of "investigation, inquiry, or trial"—thereby precluding its use during an informal phase of information gathering.

During the hearings, the Crime Branch admitted that no formal investigation or inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure was currently underway, clarifying that they were merely conducting a preliminary verification to determine if the registration of an FIR was warranted. The Court emphasized that this procedural gap rendered the Section 91 notices legally unsustainable. According to the judgment, “The preliminary verification cannot partake the character of investigation to ascertain veracity of the allegations and the enquiry officer cannot compel the proposed accused to share documents or information.”

Judicial Scrutiny of Trial Court Proceedings

The petition also challenged an order dated February 27, 2024, issued by the Court of the Special Mobile Magistrate, Passenger Tax and Shops and Establishment Act, Jammu, which had initiated criminal proceedings against Jadeja. Upon reviewing the trial court’s records, the High Court observed that the process had been issued in a "mechanical manner," failing to account for the threshold requirements for invoking Section 91 CrPC. By treating a preliminary verification as a stage where the accused could be legally compelled to participate, the trial court had inadvertently enabled an abuse of the judicial process.

The High Court drew guidance from the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh , reinforcing that the scope of a preliminary inquiry is confined solely to assessing whether a cognizable offense is disclosed. It is not intended as a tool for the state to test the truthfulness of complaints or to override the rights of individuals before a formal investigation commences. Because the underlying notice was legally impermissible, the High Court held that the subsequent complaint under Section 175 IPC was inherently flawed. As the judgment articulated, “Once it is conceded by the respondent that no investigation or inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure had been initiated, the authority could not have lawfully resorted to Section 91 CrPC.”

Current Status and Procedural Consequences

The ruling effectively terminates the pending proceedings before the Special Mobile Magistrate, bringing immediate relief to the petitioner. However, the High Court’s decision does not grant total immunity from investigation into the original allegations of fraud. The Court explicitly clarified that the Enquiry Officer remains at liberty to proceed with the complainant's original allegations in accordance with the law, provided that the investigation adheres to the established procedural framework.

By quashing both the complaint and the trial court's order, the High Court has reaffirmed that investigative agencies must maintain strict adherence to statutory boundaries, particularly when exercising powers that infringe upon an individual's liberty or property. The judgment serves as a reminder that investigative efficiency cannot come at the expense of procedural due process, ensuring that the mechanisms of the criminal justice system are applied only when authorized by clear legal mandates. The matter now returns to the standard preliminary verification stage, where any further action must comply with established legal requirements for initiating a formal criminal inquiry.