The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that trial courts must provide reasoned, speaking orders when rejecting applications for additional evidence under Section 91 of the CrPC, particularly in serious criminal matters involving allegations of dowry death. The judgment underscores the procedural obligation to ensure fair trial rights and prevents arbitrary dismissal of material evidence at the pre-trial stage.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sultan Bairva, filed this petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the order dated 16.01.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheopur, which dismissed an application filed by the prosecution under Section 91 CrPC for production of a call recording and memory card. The case arises from the alleged dowry-related death of the petitioner’s daughter, who was married to respondent No.1 on 29.04.2017. The petitioner alleges sustained harassment by the respondents, including demands for dowry and ridicule over her complexion, culminating in her death on 03.09.2022.
Key Facts
- The deceased was married to respondent No.1 on 29.04.2017
- On 03.09.2022, the petitioner was informed of his daughter’s death by in-laws
- Marg No.35/22 was registered on the petitioner’s complaint on the same day
- The petitioner and family members alleged that respondents No.1 to 3 and Raslila@Tanu were involved in the harassment leading to death
- The police investigation was criticized for lacunae, including arbitrary reduction of witness statements
- The petitioner disclosed the existence of a call recording made by the deceased three days before her death (01.09.2022)
- The police failed to seize or record the call recording despite being informed
- The charge-sheet was filed on 18.11.2022 against respondents No.1 to 3 only, omitting Raslila@Tanu
- RTI response dated 15.12.2022 confirmed Raslila@Tanu was employed as a teacher in Sheopur until 30.04.2022, placing her in the locality during the incident
- The petitioner filed complaints on 11.10.2022 and 31.10.2022 regarding investigation lapses, without response
- The prosecution, upon learning that the call recording could be produced during trial, filed an application under Section 91 CrPC on 10.12.2023 seeking production of the memory card
- The trial court dismissed the application on 16.01.2024 without assigning any reasons
Procedural History
- 29.04.2017: Marriage of deceased and respondent No.1
- 03.09.2022: Death of the deceased; Marg No.35/22 registered
- 18.11.2022: Charge-sheet filed against respondents No.1 to 3 only
- 11.10.2022: Petitioner’s first complaint regarding investigation deficiencies
- 31.10.2022: Second complaint filed
- 15.12.2022: RTI response received confirming Raslila@Tanu’s employment until 30.04.2022
- 10.12.2023: Prosecution filed application under Section 91 CrPC for call recording
- 16.01.2024: Trial court dismissed application without reasons
- 18.03.2026: High Court heard petition and delivered judgment
The Parties' Positions
The petitioner contended that the call recording was critical evidence corroborating the allegations of harassment and that the omission of Raslila@Tanu from the charge-sheet was intentional and unjustified. He argued that the trial court’s refusal to allow the evidence violated the principles of fair trial and natural justice.
The prosecution supported the application, asserting that the recording was material and could be used to cross-examine the accused, and that the trial was still in its early stages.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought: (1) quashing of the order dated 16.01.2024 dismissing the Section 91 CrPC application; (2) direction to the trial court to admit the call recording and memory card; and (3) direction to the police to include Raslila@Tanu as an accused in the case.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a trial court may dismiss an application under Section 91 of the CrPC for production of material evidence without assigning any reasons, particularly when the trial is ongoing and the evidence may significantly impact the prosecution’s case.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the trial court’s order was non-speaking and violated the principles of natural justice. He relied on State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Das and Rajesh Kumar v. State of Haryana to assert that courts must consider the relevance and materiality of evidence sought, especially in cases involving serious allegations like dowry death. He emphasized that the call recording was made three days before death and contained direct evidence of harassment, and that its exclusion would prejudice the prosecution and the victim’s family. He further contended that the trial court’s failure to consider the lacunae in investigation and the omission of Raslila@Tanu amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
For the Respondent
The respondents did not file a separate written reply. However, the trial court’s order, though unreasoned, implicitly relied on the argument that the charge-sheet had already been filed and no additional evidence could be introduced at that stage. The respondents’ counsel, during hearing, did not contest the materiality of the recording but maintained that the prosecution’s delay in seeking it was fatal.
The Court's Analysis
The High Court examined the nature of the trial court’s order dated 16.01.2024 and found it devoid of any reasoning. The court observed that the order merely stated ‘application dismissed’ without addressing the relevance of the call recording, the stage of trial, the nature of the allegations, or the potential for cross-examination.
"The impugned order dated 16.01.2024 has not been passed by a reasoned and speaking order. The reasoning has not been assigned by the trial court while dismissing the application filed under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C."
The court held that Section 91 CrPC empowers the court to summon any document or thing necessary for the purposes of inquiry or trial, and that such power must be exercised with judicial discretion, not mechanical rejection. The court noted that the trial was still in its initial phase, with prosecution evidence ongoing, and that the accused would have full opportunity to cross-examine on the contents of the recording. The court further observed that the omission of Raslila@Tanu from the charge-sheet, while concerning, could not be rectified by this court under Section 482 CrPC, as the charge-sheet had already been filed and the matter was sub judice.
The court emphasized that a non-speaking order in criminal proceedings, especially in cases involving life and liberty, is per se illegal and violates Article 21 of the Constitution. The court reiterated that the trial court’s duty is to ensure a fair trial, and that suppression of material evidence, even if sought belatedly, cannot be condoned without justification.
The Verdict
The High Court set aside the order dated 16.01.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheopur, and remanded the application under Section 91 CrPC for fresh adjudication. The trial court is directed to pass a reasoned, speaking order on the prosecution’s application for the call recording and memory card, considering the materiality of the evidence, the stage of trial, and the rights of the accused to cross-examine. The petitioner’s request to implicate Raslila@Tanu as an accused is to be raised before the trial court through appropriate legal remedies under Section 319 CrPC or by filing a fresh complaint.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Reasoned Orders Are Mandatory Under Section 91 CrPC
- Practitioners must challenge non-speaking orders dismissing Section 91 applications as violative of natural justice
- Courts must record reasons addressing relevance, materiality, and stage of trial when rejecting such applications
- A mechanical dismissal without analysis invites writ jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC
Evidence Can Be Introduced Even After Charge-Sheet, If Trial Is Ongoing
- The filing of a charge-sheet does not freeze the evidentiary record
- Prosecution may seek additional evidence during trial under Section 91 CrPC if it is material and not previously available
- Delay alone is not a ground for rejection if the evidence is crucial and the accused can still cross-examine
Omission of Accused Cannot Be Rectified Under Section 482
- Courts cannot direct inclusion of new accused under Section 482 CrPC after charge-sheet is filed
- Petitioners must pursue remedies under Section 319 CrPC or file a separate complaint
- This preserves the sanctity of the charge-sheet and prevents abuse of writ jurisdiction
