Allahabad High Court
Udaiveer Singh vs State Of U.P.And Another on 14 July, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:140667 Court No. - 92 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12684 of 2023 Applicant :- Udaiveer Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- A.K. Mishra,Sati Shanker Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deepak Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.
1. Heard Sri Sati Shanker Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri P.P. Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated 07.02.2023 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C-1, Mathura by which the application filed by the applicant u/s 91 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act has been rejected by the trial court in Sessions Trial No. 765 of 2015 (State Vs. Udaiveer and others) u/s 498-A, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. arising out of Case Crime No. 401 of 2013, P.S.- Highway, District- Mathura.
3. Vide impugned order dated 07.02.2023, the trial court has rejected application nos. 130 Kha and 133 Kha filed by the applicant/accused u/s 91 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act for summoning documents mentioned as annexure to his application no. 130 Kha.
4. From the perusal of the impugned order as well as the aforesaid applications, it transpires that the case is pending for cross-examination of P.W.1, Ms. Kusum.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant/accused has submitted these applications requesting the trial court to procure documents mentioned in the application which the defence may use for cross-examination of P.W.1. He has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Special Police Establishment Vs. Umesh Tiwari and another, passed in M.Cr.C. No. 60404 of 2021 vide order dated 21.01.2022.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has opposed the application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the defence has no right to summon any documents before the prosecution evidence is concluded and the case is fixed for defence evidence. He has relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 (1) SCC 568 wherein it has been held by the Apex Court in paragraph no. 25 of the aforesaid judgement as follows :
"25. ............ 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 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. 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 be issued by Court and under a written order an officer in charge of police station 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."
7. In view of the law propounded by the Apex Court in Debendra Nath Padhi (supra), there is no ground to interfere with the order dated 07.02.2023 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C-1, Mathura.
8. The application is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 14.7.2023 KS