AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sandeep Natvarlal Bhatt, J
The present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS/ Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 08.05.2025 passed by 30th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in ST No.661/2022 arising out of Crime No.507/2022, whereby the application preferred by the petitioners under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 28.8.2022 the complainant namely Dr. Dheeraj Dhawande C.H.M.O(Jabalpur) submitted a complaint to Police Station Lordganj, Jabalpur stating that on 26.08.2022 the complainant along with Dr. Pankaj Grover (RMO District Jabalpur), Dr. Adarsh Vishnoi Nodal officer Nursing Home, Bhuvan Mohan Sahu (District Co-ordinator Jabalpur) conducted an inspection at Central India Kidney Hospital and they found that the said hospital has admitted 12 patient in the first floor of adjoining Vega Hotel under the Ayushman Scheme. It is the case of the prosecution that some of the patients who were admitted under the said Scheme were found to be suffering from different ailment, whereas they were being provided treatment for some other disease. It is further the case of the prosecution that at around 5 PM on 26.08.2022 the complainant and his team also visited the 3rd floor of Vega hotel and found that 10 patients were admitted, however when the said team again visited the hotel at 9:30 PM on the same day, the floor was locked and there were no patients admitted. Further, case of the prosecution is that, in the file of certain patients the pathology report refers to the name of Dr.Vandana Khanna as Lab Director, however Dr. Vandana Khanna communicated that she is not associated with the said lab. it is also alleged that in the file of certain patients in their pathology report name of Dr. Sanjay Totade has been shown as Consultant Pathalogist, however Dr.Sanjay Totade informed that he has not been giving services in the said Lab since April 2020. On the basis of such complaint FIR bearing Crime No.507/2022 was registered at police station - Lordganj, district - Jabalpur.
During the course of investigation, the investigating agency recorded statements of various witnesses namely Mr. Prakash Patil, who allegedly stated that he was admitted in the hospital for one day, however it is the case of the prosecution that the file of the said patient showed that he was in the hospital from 13.5.2022 to 22.5.2022. Furthermore, the investigating agency after referring to the name of various patients averred that on the statement of the said witnesses, money was received by the hospital. Furthermore, statements of various witnesses have been recorded who have alleged that they were admitted for a single day, however their admission in the hospital has been shown from 13.5.2022 to 22.5.2022. On the said basis, various other patients have been made witnesses to aver that their stay in the hospital was shown for longer duration, than their actual admission.
Therefore, during trial and before recording the statement of witnesses Dr. Dheeraj Dhawande and Dr. Bhuvan Mohan Sahu, the petitioners moved an application under Section 91Cr.P.C/Section 94 BNSS requesting the trial Court to summon certain documents. In the said application, the petitioners averred that the prosecution has hidden material facts from the knowledge of the Court. It was submitted that in the inspection reports the details of patients admitted under Ayushman Scheme, treatment provided to them and details of interaction is also available, therefore- the inspections reports submitted by Dr. Dheeraj Dhawande and Dr. Bhuvan Mohan Sahu to the office of Chief Executive Officer Ayushman Yojna are necessary for just and proper decision of the present case, as such the inspection reports submitted by Dr. Dheeraj Dnawande and Dr. Bhuvan Mohan Sahu inrespect of Central Kidney Hospital Jabalpur from the period January 2020 to 28.08.2022 may be summoned from the office of Chief Executive Officer Ayusman Yojna Bhopal, and also from the office of C.M.H.O. Victoria Hospital Jabalpur.
The petitioners sought summoning of following documents: Copies of the inspection reports submitted by Dr. Bhuvan MohanSahu and Dr. Dheeraj Dhawande in respect of Central Kidney Hospital Jabalpur from the period January 2020 to 28.08.2022 from the Office of Chief Executive Officer Ayushman Yojna Bhopal; Copies of the inspection reports submitted by Dr. Bhuvan MohanSahu and Dr. Dheeraj Dhawande in respect of Central KidneyHospital Jabalpur from the period January 2020 to 28.08.2022 from the office of C.M.H.O. Victoria Hospital Jabalpur; Copies of the Audit Reports for the year 2020-2021, 2021- 2022and 2022-2023 prepared by the officers posted in the Office of Chief Executive Officer Ayushman Yojna Bhopal in respect of Central Kidney Hospital Jabalpur from the office of Chief Executive Officer Ayushman Yojna Bhopal; Copies of the complete payment details (all patients case to case) from 2020 to August 2022 in respect of Central Kidney Hospital Jabalpur, from the office of Chief Executive Officer Ayushman Yojna Bhopal; Copy of the application submitted by Central Kidney Hospital Jabalpur before C.M.H.O. Jabalpur for extension of B wing, from the office of C.M.H.O Victoria hospital Jabalpur; Copy of Fire NOC application submitted by Central Kidney Hospital Jabalpur in Nagar Nigam Jabalpur may be summoned from the office of Nagar Nigam Jabalpur. Learned Trial Court rejected the application of the petitioners vide order dated 8.5.2025, wherein the sole reason assigned by the Learned Trial Court is that these documents are not relevant because they simply show the past conduct of the petitioners.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the documents which are sought to be summoned have not been produced along with the charge-sheet by the prosecution and they are very vital documents and with a view to have fair trial said documents are required to be given to the present petitioners.
He has submitted that the trial Court has erred in finding that these documents can be obtained by filing an application under the RTI Act and can be produced at the time of defence evidence. It is further submitted that remedy under the RTI Act cannot be a ground to reject the application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. Even otherwise the petitioners pleaded that the said documents are not being provided under the RTI Act and his defence shall be seriously prejudice if the application in question is not allowed. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is perverse and deserves to be set aside. It is also submitted that the trial Court erred in appreciating the importance of the requested documents. From the aforesaid documents, the petitioner will be able to confront the prosecution witnesses who had submitted periodical reports about the functioning of the hospital especially the dates preceding 26.08.2022. The trial Court observed that allegations of the prosecution are restricted to the inspection conducted on 26.08.2022, however, the trial Court in the impugned order referred to the statements of the patients who were admitted prior to 26.08.2022. It is contended that the trial Court on one hand has stated that these documents do not pertain to the allegation and in the same breathe trial Court has referred to the allegations of previous dates such as admission of patient Deepika Dhemar from 24.03.2022 to 05.04.2022, Prakash Patil from 13.05.2022 to 22.05.2022, and Jitendra Kumari from 15.03.2022 to 17.04.2022. Therefore, it is clear that the application of the prosecution traverse to the period before 26.08.2022. Hence, the documents which the petitioners are seeking to summon are very well relevant to the allegations levelled against them and important to confront the prosecution witnesses to demolish the case of the prosecution and to sustain their defence. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order dated 08.05.2025 being perverse requires to be set aside allowing the application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that trial Court has dealt with the aspect of providing the documents in detail and come to the conclusion that such documents are not required to be considered and no serious prejudice will be caused to the petitioners. The trial Court has also indicated that if at all the petitioner is of the view that such documents are required to be produced in his case, then the petitioner could have received such documents by filing an application under the RTI Act. It is further contended that the trial Court has exercised its discretion after considering the material available on record. Therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed as lacks merits as the trial Court has not committed any error, illegality or perversity.
I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. 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 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."
I have also gone through the contents of the application filed by the petitioners before the trial Court under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. and also perused the impugned order. The trial Court specifically considered the aspect that the dispute/allegations pertain to the date of raid/inspection i.e. 26.08.2022 and the material available on that day and the investigation carried out accordingly. Therefore, the documents which are sought to be availed by the present petitioners by way of application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. are not required to be considered as no prejudice shall be caused to the rights of the petitioners. The trial Court also considered the aspect that if at all the petitioners are relying on such documents, the said documents can be availed by the petitioners by filing the application under the RTI Act and can be produced the said documents for confronting the prosecution witnesses at the time of defence evidence. It also referred to the decisions in the cases of In re v. Dr. Raghottam , 1962 SCC OnLine Andhra Pradesh 41 and Mohd. Rahim v. Emperor, 1934 SCC OnLine Sindh JC 71.
There is no dispute with regard to proposition of law that the document which is necessary for consideration of allegations can be called from any authority at any stage of trial but condition is that the document should be required for resolution or consideration of the matter in question. If such document is not necessary for consideration of allegation in the FIR and in view of the material produced by the prosecution then, such discretion should not be exercised by the Court under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C.
The trial Court has specifically considered all these aspects in detail by discussing the material available on record by way of documents of the chargesheet. Therefore, the Court has ultimately come to the conclusion that the present application filed under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. does not disclose the factual foundation which requires exercise of power under provision of Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. It also transpires that merely the documents available under the RTI Act is normally should not be a ground to reject the application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. but at the same time, can be one consideration among other considerations.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, AIR 2005 SC 359, has considered the scope of exercise of power under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. and in paragraphs 27 and 28 has held as follows:
"27. Insofar as Section 91 is concerned, it was rightly held that the width of the powers of that section was unlimited but there were inbuilt, inherent limitations as to the stage or point of time of its exercise, commensurate with the nature of proceedings as also the compulsions of necessity and desirability, to fulfil the task or achieve the object. Before the trial court the stage was to find out whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding to the next stage against the accused. The application filed by the accused under Section 91 of the Code for summoning and production of document was dismissed and order was upheld by the High Court and this Court. But observations were made in para 6 to the effect that if the accused could produce any reliable material even at that stage which might totally affect even the very sustainability of the case, a refusal to look into the material so produced may result in injustice, apart from averting an exercise in futility at the expense of valuable judicial/public time, these observations are clearly obiter dicta and in any case of no consequence in view of conclusion reached by us hereinbefore. Further, the observations cannot be understood to mean that the accused has a right to produce any document at the stage of framing of charge having regard to the clear mandate of Sections 227 and 228 in Chapter 18 and Sections 239 and 240 in Chapter 19.
We are of the view that jurisdiction under Section 91 of the Code when invoked by the 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."
It is also relevant to note that Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation and Another v. Thommandru Hanna Vijayalakshmi, AIR 2021 SC 5041 whereby the Apex Court has discussed the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and observed that n o restriction can be placed on the High Court's powers under Section 482 of the Code. The High Court always uses and must use this power sparingly and with great circumspection to prevent inter alia the abuse of the process of the court. There are no fixed formulae to be followed by the High Court in this regard and the exercise of this power depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The High Court at that stage does not conduct a mini-trial or roving inquiry, but nothing prevents it from taking unimpeachable evidence or totally acceptable circumstances into account which may lead it to conclude that no trial is necessary. This principle also applies squarely to the exercise of powers by a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution while considering a writ petition for quashing an FIR.
In the present case, on bare reading of the reasons assigned by the trial Court, it cannot be said that the trial Court committed any error of facts or law by allowing the application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. as no serious prejudice is going to cause to the petitioner.
Therefore, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.