Suninder Sandha Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr on 02 Dec 2025

A division bench of Apex Court held as follows,

From Para 15,

15. Evidently, Section 91 of the Code does not itself prescribe any stage. The core issue remains whether invocation of power under Section 91 of the Code by the Trial Court is as per the manner contemplated/provided for in law. We are mindful that the underlying case in Sarla Gupta (supra)1 concerned the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. It is seen that State of Orissa v Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568, relied upon by the High Court, was considered by a Bench of equal strength in Sarla Gupta (supra).

From Para 17,

17. The law is no longer res integra, having been lastly settled by the 3-Judge Bench in Sarla Gupta (supra), which provides clarity as to the relevant stage at which power under Section 91 of the Code may be invoked. In the underlying case in these appeals, such stage has not yet been reached, as defence evidence has not commenced.

Suninder Sandha Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr on 02 Dec 2025

B Venkat Rao Vs State of Telangana on 07 Nov 2023

Posted on March 24, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Telangana High Court held as follows,

From Paras 3 and 4,

3. The petitioner who is the husband filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C seeking a direction from the learned Magistrate for producing the passport copy of PW1. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said application on the ground that 91 Cr.P.C cannot be invoked against the witness and it would amount to testimonial compulsion.
4. The document sought to be produced is the passport of PW1. PW1 is a witness, not accused. In fact, in her cross examination on 01.11.2022, she stated that she can produce the passport if necessary. In the said circumstances, when the witness herself has volunteered to produce the passport, the same can be permitted. PW1 shall produce her passport for the purpose of cross examination.

B Venkat Rao Vs State of Telangana on 07 Nov 2023

This Order was challenged before the Apex Court here.

Bezawada Chandravadana Vs State of Telangana and Anr

Posted on March 22, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of the Apex Court held as follows,

On 15-Mar-2024,

3. Heard Mr. Abid Ali Beeran P, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The counsel submits that the petitioner is the complainant and the respondent No. 2 who is her husband, is facing the proceeding in CC No. 249 of 2012 before the Magistrate’s Court at Hyderabad. In course of the said proceeding, the petitioner was examined as PW-1 and on the basis of her response in the cross-examination, the respondent No. 2 had filed the application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. for a direction on the petitioner to produce her passport for the purpose of further cross-examination. According to the counsel, the said prayer was rightly rejected by the learned Magistrate under her order dated 14.07.2023 (Annexure P/4). However, the High Court under the impugned order has erroneously ordered for production of the petitioner’s passport to substantiate her claim on the travel from USA to India.
4. The counsel would argue that this was an incorrect decision by the High Court as in the application filed by the respondent No. 2, the petitioner was not arrayed as a party. It will also have implication for the privacy of the petitioner.

Bezawada Chandravadana Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 15 Mar 2024

Earlier order from Telangana High Court here.

Jaspreet Kaur Vs State of NCT of Delhi on 12 Dec 2023

Posted on January 19, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single bench of Delhi High Court held as follows, wrt usage of section 91 Cr.P.C.

From Para 14,

14. The Division Bench of Hon‟ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Special Police Establishment v. Umesh Tiwari 2022 SCC OnLine MP 100 had enlisted the ingredients of Section 91 of Cr.P.C., and had also observed that the right to invoke Section 91 is not limited only to the Court and Police, but also to the victim, accused and/or any other stakeholder. The relevant observations are reproduced hereunder for reference:
“4.3 Language employed in Section 91 reveals following foundational ingredients and characteristics:-
(i) Section 91 is meant to be invoked for producing documents/other things by way of summon.
(ii) Section 91 can be invoked at any stage of investigation, inquiry, trial or even other proceedings under the Cr.P.C.
(iii) Section 91 does not expressly provide as to who can invoke this provision.
(iv) However, the language of Section 91 implies that it can be invoked by the Court or the Officer in-charge of the Police Station concerned.
(v) And this invocation can be done when the Court or the Police is of the view that production is necessary or desirable for the purpose of investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings under Cr.P.C.
(vi) The satisfaction regarding necessity or desirability of the Court or the Police is sine qua non for invoking this provision.
(vii) The production of document or other thing is to be made before the Court if directed by the Court or before the officer if directed by Police Officer. ***
4.5 From the aforesaid analysis, it is vivid that it would not be proper to restrict the right to invoke Section 91 to only the Court and the Police Officer. The window of Section 91 will have to remain open for all the stakeholders in an investigation, inquiry, trial and other proceedings, be it the victim, accused, police, Court or any other stakeholders involved.

From Para 15,

15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Debendra Nath Padhi (supra), while examining the issue of when an accused would be entitled to file an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., had discussed the concept of “necessity‟ and “desirability‟ of production of a document or any other thing. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court read as under:
“25. Any document or other thing envisaged under the aforesaid provision can be ordered to be produced on finding that the same is “necessary or desirable for the purpose of investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code”.
The first and foremost requirement of the section is about the document being necessary or desirable. The necessity or desirability would have to be seen with reference to the stage when a prayer is made for the production. If any document is necessary or desirable for the defence of the accused, the question of invoking Section 91 at the initial stage of framing of a charge would not arise since defence of the accused is not relevant at that stage. When the section refers to investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings, it is to be borne in mind that under the section a police officer may move the court for summoning and production of a document as may be necessary at any of the stages mentioned in the section. Insofar as the accused is concerned, his entitlement to seek order under Section 91 would ordinarily not come till the stage of defence. When the section talks of the document being necessary and desirable, it is implicit that necessity and desirability is to be examined considering the stage when such a prayer for summoning and production is made and the party who makes it, whether police or accused…”

Jaspreet Kaur Vs State of NCT of Delhi on 12 Dec 2023

Shyam Manohar Saxena Vs CBI and Ors on 1 Jul 2019

Posted on July 13, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Delhi High Court found the Trial Court to be erring in not allowing a 91 CrPC petition sought by the accused citing wrong reasons. Each of such error is clearly called out and hung to dry.

From Para 30,

25. The reasoning given by the Trial Court that specific particulars or dates of meetings have not been given is ex-facie unsubstantiated. The list of documents, as extracted hereinabove, clearly shows that the petitioner has given requisite particulars so as to identify the relevant documents. It may further be noticed that subject application was filed along with an application under Section 315 Cr.P.C filed by the petitioner as well as the other co-accused. Applications under Section 315 Cr.P.C. of the accused were allowed and accused were permitted to examine themselves as witnesses.
26. Under Section 243 Cr.P.C. it is obligatory on the part of the Trial Court to issue process when the accused seeks summoning of any witness or production of any document in his defence. The only ground on which such an application can be refused is if the same was vexatious, delayed or would defeat the ends of justice.
27. In the instant case, no such findings have been returned by the Trial Court. On the contrary, the Trial Court has erred in not noticing that the petitioner had moved an application even at the stage when prosecution evidence was being led and was permitted to withdraw that application with liberty to move an appropriate application at the stage of defence evidence and that is exactly what the petitioner has done.
28. Further, the Trial Court has clearly erred in holding that it is within the discretion of the court, under Section 243 Cr.P.C. to decline such an application. On the contrary, as per section 243 Cr.P.C., it is obligatory on the part of the Trial Court to issue process, unless, it for the reasons to be recorded, holds that the application is vexatious, delayed or defeats the ends of justice.
29. Further reasoning given by the Trial Court, that the petitioner is seeking re-summoning of the witnesses, who have already been examined, is also not correct. Petitioner has not sought summoning of the witnesses, who have already been examined as prosecution witnesses for re-examination/cross-examination. Petitioner has merely sought production of the relevant record of the association from the custodian thereof. Admittedly, the record would come from an undisputed source. Petitioner has not sought re-summoning of any witness already examined, by name but has only sought production of the documents from the custodian thereof. Once the documents are produced, it would be open to the petitioner to prove the same in accordance with the Evidence Act.
30. Further reasoning given by the Trial Court, that the petitioner could have obtained copies of the documents under the Right to Information Act and then cross-examined the witnesses on the said documents, is also erroneous. Even if a person were to obtain copies of the documents under the Right to Information Act, said copies would not become primary evidence in terms of the Evidence Act and a party would still need to summon the original record from the custodian thereof.

Shyam Manohar Saxena Vs CBI and Ors on 1 Jul 2019

Citations : [2019 SCC ONLINE DEL 8961]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/197449956/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5d1a4325714d580311101c19

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/shyam-manohar-saxena-versus-central-bureau-of-investigation-ors

CrPC 91 – Summons to produce document or other thing

Posted on June 25, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

(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.

Amandeep Singh Johar Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr on 7 February, 2018

Posted on January 27, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has laid down the procedure to be follow in Delhi by Police in regards to the CrPC Section 41A.

Amandeep Singh Johar Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr on 7 February, 2018

Nitya Dharmananda @ K. Lenin Vs Sri Gopal Sheelum Reddy on 7 December, 2017

Posted on August 24, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Another gem of Order (not judgment) from my favorite judges Shri Adarsh Kumar Goel J and Shri Uday Umesh Lalit J, where in it was held that,

From Para 9,

Thus, it is clear that while ordinarily the Court has to proceed on the basis of material produced with the charge sheet for dealing with the issue of charge but if the court is satisfied that there is material of sterling quality which has been withheld by the investigator/prosecutor, the court is not debarred from summoning or relying upon the same even if such document is not a part of the charge sheet. It does not mean that the defence has a right to invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. de hors the satisfaction of the court, at the stage of charge.

Nitya Dharmananda @ K. Lenin Vs Sri Gopal Sheelum Reddy on 7 December, 2017

Citations : [CDJ 2017 SC 1384], [2017 SCC ONLINE SC 1430], [(2018) 2 SCC 93], [(2018) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 458], [(2018) 2 SCC 6]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/178580003/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5a3408f5ce686e2b4ddaf270

State Of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi on 29 November, 2004

Posted on June 4, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

A key question is clarified by the 3-judge bench of Supreme Court in this landmark judgment.

Can the trial court at the time of framing of charge consider material filed by the accused?

The scope of Sections 227 and 228 and scope of Sections 239 and 240 are explained along with scope of Sections 482

At the end the following is the summary arrived at.

Under Sections 227 and 228, a Magistrate of the trial court, is supposed to consider only the material sent by prosecution along with the record of the case and the documents sent along with it, at the time of framing of the charge. The accused at that stage has no right to place before the court any material.
Under Sections 239 and 240, requires the Magistrate to consider ‘the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173’ and, if necessary, examine the accused and after giving accused an opportunity of being heard, if the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, the accused is liable to be discharged by recording reasons thereof.
Regarding the argument of accused having to face the trial despite being in a position to produce material of unimpeachable character of sterling quality, the width of the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code and Article 226 of Constitution of India is unlimited whereunder in the interests of justice the High Court can make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice within the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal’s case. Under Section 482 of the Code, along with the petition the accused may file unimpeachable evidence of sterling quality and on that basis seek quashing.

Legal point around application under/of CrPC 91

In so far as the accused is concerned, his entitlement to seek order under Section 91 would ordinarily not come till the stage of defence. When the section talks of the document beingnecessary and desirable, it is implicit that necessity and desirability is to be examined considering the stage when such a prayer for summoning andproduction is made and the party who makes it whether police or accused. If under Section 227 what is necessary and relevant is only the record produced in terms of Section 173 of the Code, the accused cannot at that stage invoke Section 91 to seek production of any document to show his innocence. Under Section 91 summons for production of document can beissued by Court and under a written order an officer in charge of policestation can also direct production thereof. Section 91 does not confer any right on the accused to produce document in his possession to prove his defence. Section 91 presupposes that when the document is not produced process may be initiated to compel production thereof.

Final conclusion: (from Para 29)

We are of the view that jurisdiction under Section 91 of the Code when invoked by accused the necessity and desirability would have to be seen by the Court in the context of the purpose investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code. It would also have to be borne in mind that law does not permit a roving or fishing inquiry. Regarding the argument of accused having to face the trial despite being in a position to produce material of unimpeachable character of sterling quality, the width of the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code and Article 226 of Constitution of India is unlimited whereunder in the interests of justice the High Court can make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice within the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal’s case.

State Of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi on 29 November, 2004

Citations : [2005 AIR SC 359], [2005 ALT CRI 1 1198], [2005 CLT SC 99 348], [2005 GLH 1 312], [2004 JT SC 10 303], [2005 KLT SC 1 80], [2005 OLR SC 1 357], [2005 RLW SC 3 414], [2004 SCALE 10 50], [2005 SCC 1 568], [2005 SCC CRI 415], [2004 SLT 7 339], [2004 SUPREME 8 568], [2005 OCR 30 177], [2005 RCR CRI 1 297], [2005 CALCRILR 1 487], [2005 CRIMES SC 1 1], [2004 AIR SCW 6813], [2005 CTC SC 1 134]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/7496/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae0be4b0149711412c9f

Index of Quash judgments u/s 482 are here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: CrPC 91 – Summons to produce document or other thing

Suninder Sandha Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr on 02 Dec 2025

B Venkat Rao Vs State of Telangana on 07 Nov 2023

Bezawada Chandravadana Vs State of Telangana and Anr

Jaspreet Kaur Vs State of NCT of Delhi on 12 Dec 2023

Shyam Manohar Saxena Vs CBI and Ors on 1 Jul 2019

CrPC 91 – Summons to produce document or other thing

Amandeep Singh Johar Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr on 7 February, 2018

Nitya Dharmananda @ K. Lenin Vs Sri Gopal Sheelum Reddy on 7 December, 2017

State Of Orissa Vs Debendra Nath Padhi on 29 November, 2004