Delhi High Court
Wasim & Anr vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 21 July, 2025
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 25.04.2025
Pronounced on: 21.07.2025
+ CRL.M.C. 8628/2024
WASIM & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Anshu Priyanka, Advocate.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
CRL.M.A. 32996/2024 & CRL.M.A. 32997/2024 EXEMPTION
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The applications stand disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 8628/2024 & CRL.M.A. 32995/2024 STAY
1. This is petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) read with Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1908 [“Code”], seeking quashing of order
dated 18.12.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Court in the matter
titled “State Vs. Wasim & Ors.“, whereby, the application under
Section 91 Cr. PC filed by the petitioners for issuance of directions to
the Investigating Officer to produce the documents, verified by him
during investigation, was dismissed.
CRL.M.C. 8628/2025 Page 1 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:22.07.2025
17:23:30
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 05.09.2014, the deceased
co-accused Irfan Ali was duped by the alleged victim Ranjeet Kumar
@ Amit Kumar, who procured Rs. 32,000/- in cash, six blank cheques,
and identity documents (Voter ID and PAN card) from Irfan Ali under
the guise of arranging a personal loan. On 15.09.2014, Irfan Ali was
informed by his banker that an amount of Rs. 99,000/- was found to be
fraudulently transferred from his account to an account belonging to
Amit Kumar using one of the blank cheques bearing No. 922145
handed over by Irfan Ali. Subsequently, a complaint was lodged by
Irfan Ali at P.S. Govindpuri on 16.09.2014. Thereafter, on 21.10.2014,
Ranjeet Kumar visited the residence of Petitioner No. 1, and on
confrontation, he confessed to the fraudulent conduct, following which
Ranjeet Kumar was taken to P.S. Govindpuri and FIR No. 1112/2014
under Sections 420/34 IPC was registered against him.
2.1 On the same date i.e. on 21.10.2014, the cousin of Ranjeet
Kumar namely Alok Nandan lodged FIR No. 520/2014 under Section
364A IPC at P.S Anand Parbat against the petitioners. The allegations,
as per the FIR, No. 520/2014 are that the complainant (Alok Nandan),
received a call from Ranjeet Singh, stating that he was kidnapped by
the petitioners for a ransom demand of Rs. 1.5 lakhs. Petitioners were
arrested on 22.10.2014 and were subsequently granted bail by the
Court vide order dated 14.11.2014.
2.2 The charge sheet against the petitioners in FIR No. 520/2014
was filed under sections 364A/120B/34 IPC. The petitioners allege
CRL.M.C. 8628/2025 Page 2 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:22.07.2025
17:23:30
that the charge sheet has been filed in case FIR No. 520/2014 without
disclosing the true facts and without filing the requisite documents.
2.3 Petitioners preferred an application under Section 91 of the
Code seeking directions to investigating agency for production of
documents, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 05.11.2016.
Feeling aggrieved, petitioners preferred Crl. M.C. No. 439/2017 for
setting aside the order dated 05.11.2016 and this Court vide order
dated 21.02.2017 granted liberty to the petitioners to prefer application
under section 91 of the Code when the prosecution evidence starts.
2.4 On 23.01.2017, the petitioners preferred a 2ndapplication under
section 91 of the Code seeking issuance of directions to the
Investigating Officer for production of documents. On 02.02.2018, the
IO filed reply stating they are not in possession of the requisite
documents, whereupon the application was withdrawn by the counsel
for the petitioners.
2.5 The 3rdapplication filed by the petitioners under section 91 of
the Code seeking production of documents was dismissed by the Trial
Court vide impugned order dated 18.12.2023. Being aggrieved, the
petitioners have filed the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the documents
sought to be produced are not the defence of the petitioners, but were
part of the investigation carried out by the investigating agency during
the course of investigation. It is not the duty of the Investigating
CRL.M.C. 8628/2025 Page 3 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:22.07.2025
17:23:30
Officer to strengthen the case of prosecution by withholding the
evidence collected by him during investigation. It is argued that fair
and just investigation is a hallmark of any investigation. Since the
Investigating Officer in this case has withheld the relevant documents,
which shall establish the falsity of the prosecution case, not made part
of the charge sheet, should be directed to be placed on record in
exercise of power under Section 91 Cr.P.C.
4. Per contra, learned APP, appearing for the State, submits that
the documents which the petitioners want to be produced by the IO are
neither in possession of the investigating agency nor these documents
are the part and parcel of the charge sheet and in case the petitioners
want to place them on record, they can summon the same at an
appropriate stage.
5. Powers under Section 91 Cr. PC are enabling in nature, aimed at
arming the court or any police officer in charge of a police station
concerned to enforce and to ensure the possession of any document or
other thing necessary or desirable for the purpose of investigating,
inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code by issuing summons
or written order to those in possession of such material. Before
dealing with rival submissions, it is apposite to refer Section 91 of the
Code which reads as under:
“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 CodeCRL.M.C. 8628/2025 Page 4 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:22.07.2025
17:23:30
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.”
6. Section 91 is a procedural tool to facilitate the production of
documents or things necessary for fair adjudication in a criminal case.
It balances the interest of justice by empowering both the investigating
agency and the accused to bring relevant evidence on record.
However, its misuse or fishing enquiries must be discouraged. The
language of Section 91, no doubt, indicates the width of powers to be
unlimited but the inbuilt limitation inherent therein takes its colour and
shape from the stage or point of time it is exercised commensurately
with the nature of proceedings as also the compulsions of necessity
and desirability to fulfill the task or achieve the object. Another
limitation to invocation of Section 91 is that it cannot be used for
documents not in power or possession of the person from whom they
are sought.
CRL.M.C. 8628/2025 Page 5 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:22.07.2025
17:23:30
7. Petitioners sought the production of following documents:-
a. FIR No. 1112/14 under Section 420/34 IPC registered in PS
Govindpuri against the victim of the instant case.
b. Disclosure statement of victim Ranjeet Kumar @ Amit Kumar
in the abovementioned FIR.
c. Complaint of Shri Shiv Shankar, Vinjay Gaiven lodged in with
PS Govindpuri vide DD No. 20-B, dated 31.05.2014.
d. Complaint of Shri Amrik Singh lodged with PS Ranjeet Nagar
vide No. 65B dated 17.09.2014.
e. Complaint of Krishan Kumar lodged in Police Post, Sector 16
Faridabad vide reference number 97-5P II dated 31.10.2014.
f. Details of all 13 accounts maintained by Ranjeet Kumar @
Amit Kumar along with statements of account for period 01.01.2015 to
31.12.2014 and their account opening form.
g. Order dated 07.11.2014 passed by Shri Ranjender Kumar
Shastri, ASJ-02/SE, New Delhi in case FIR No. 1112/14 under Section
420/34 IPC, PS Govindpuri.
8. Admittedly, the documents, sought to be produced, relate to
case FIR No. 1112/2014, under Sections 420/34 IPC, PS Govind Puri.
Admittedly, they are not the part of the record of case FIR No.
520/2014, PS Anand Parbat. The impugned order passed by the trial
court takes note of the status report of the IO that the allegations
against the victim Ranjeet Kumar @ Amit Kumar have been got
verified from the concerned authority as per directions of the court and
during investigation, it came to notice that Ranjeet Kumar and Amit
Kumar are the same persons and Ranjeet Kumar @ Amit Kumar in his
disclosure statement in case FIR No. 1112/2014, under Sections
CRL.M.C. 8628/2025 Page 6 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:22.07.2025
17:23:30
420/34 IPC, disclosed that he has cheated many persons with the same
modus operandi. However, three complaints were lodged against him
i.e. one at PS Govind Puri dated 31.05.2014 vide DD No. 20B, one
complaint at PS Ranjit Nagar, vide DD No. 65B dated 17.09.2014 and
another complaint in PP, Sector 16 Faridabad dated 31.10.2014 and
that all the three complaints are of similar nature of cheating/fraud.
The status report of the IO indicates that account details of Ranjeet
Kumar @ Amit Kumar were also got verified.
9. The status report makes it clear that the IO had merely made
verification about the documents in terms of directions of the court.
Since, as claimed by the prosecution, such documents are not in power
and possession of the investigating agency, no such direction to
produce the said documents be issued to the IO in exercise of power
under Section 91 Cr.P.C. The trial court has therefore rightly
dismissed the application.
10. In view thereof, I find no illegality or infirmity in the order
passed by the learned trial court. The petition is dismissed, with
pending applications, if any, However, petitioners would be at liberty
to summon the documents from the concerned Police Station/Court at
the stage of evidence, if so required.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
JULY 21, 2025AK/RM
CRL.M.C. 8628/2025 Page 7 of 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:22.07.2025
17:23:30
