ORDER BY THE COURT: This criminal misc. petition under section 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 04.08.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Woman Atrocity Cases, Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter), whereby the trial court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under section 91 CrPC for summoning documents. Brief facts of the case are that one Geeta wife of petitioner No.3 – Vijay Kumar died at her maternal home on 19.03.2012. The death of Geeta was not natural. Father of the petitioner and other relatives immediately reached the scene of occurrence, where they were informed by the uncles of Geeta that she fell into a water tank and on account of that, she has expired. It is revealed that at the time of her death, Geet was having pregnancy of eight months. On the basis of the first information report lodged at the instance of the father of Geeta, FIR No.113/2012 was registered at Police Station, Ratangarh and investigation commenced. When the investigation was not properly carried out, Shyam Lal, the father of deceased Geeta filed a Criminal Misc. Petition No.1962/2012 before this Court with a prayer that the police may be directed to conduct fair and impartial investigation into the allegations levelled in the FIR No.113/2012 pertaining to Police Station, Ratangarh, District Churu. During the pendency of the above mentioned criminal misc. petition, charge- sheet was filed by CID (CB) and at that stage, another application was moved by Shyam Lal seeking a direction for sending the matter for further investigation to the CBI. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 27.04.2013, while allowing the S.B.Cr.Misc. Petition No.1962/2012, has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation, Jodhpur to register a regular case and thereafter conduct investigation of the case by passing the following order: “Heard and considered the submissions advanced at the bar. Perused the record. From a bare perusal of the record, the following facts can be enumerated as being admitted facts:- 1. That Smt. Geeta was married to Vijay Kumar on 27.3.2011. 2. That Geeta was carrying a child of 8 months in her womb when she expired. 3. That Geeta met with unnatural death by drowning in her marital home within a period of one year from the date of her marriage. She died by drowning in the water tank in her matrimonial home. 4. 2. That Geeta was carrying a child of 8 months in her womb when she expired. 3. That Geeta met with unnatural death by drowning in her marital home within a period of one year from the date of her marriage. She died by drowning in the water tank in her matrimonial home. 4. The opening of the tank was found measuring 1.6 ft. x 1.7ft. on site inspection. There are specific allegations of the complainant petitioner Shyamlal that Smt. Geeta was being continuously tortured by her in-laws and the husband on account of bringing less dowry. Smt. Geeta called the witness on 17.3.2012 and informed him about the threat to her life and the demand of Rs. 4 lacs made by the in-laws. 5. That despite a statement made by the I.O. to this Court regarding the offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. having been added to the case, the Investigating Agency has chosen not to file a charge sheet against the accused for this offence. 6. That Vijay Kumar the husband of the deceased in relation to whom there was specific assurance given to this Court that efforts were going on to arrest him has not been charge sheeted in the case. 7. That F.I.R. was registered in March, 2012 and the only charge sheeted accused Chuka Devi was arrested by the Investigating Agency on 20.11.2012 after the displeasure expressed by this Court on the conduct of the Investigating Agency. These facts are sufficient to prick the conscience of this Court that the Investigating Agency did not act fairly and bonafide in the case. The investigation carried out thus far is tainted and heavily biased in favour of the accused. Thus, this Court is of the firm opinion that the investigation has not been conducted fairly in this case and the I.O. has tried to cover up and hush up whole case by inadequate, tainted lopsided investigation in a serious case of unnatural dowry death of a pregnant lady carrying a child of 8 months in her womb within a short span of one year from her marriage. The complainant had to run from pillar to post before one accused could be arrested in this case. The complainant had to run from pillar to post before one accused could be arrested in this case. For no good reasons, the accused persons against whom there are specific allegations of harassing and torturing the deceased in relation to demand of dowry have been left out from the array of the accused. Thus, for a just and fair investigation of the case, the file of the case has to be directed to be transferred to the C.B.I. for further investigation. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition is allowed. The file of the case is directed to be transferred to the S.P.(E) C.B.I., Jodhpur who shall direct registration of a regular case and thereafter shall have the investigation of the case carried out fairly under his own supervision. The Investigating officer shall try and complete investigation within a period of six months from the date of this order.” Pursuant to the above directions, the CBI has conducted the investigation and filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 304B and 498A read with section 34 IPC. Later on, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan to transfer the same in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Woman Atrocities Metropolitan, Jodhpur and the same is pending trial in the said Court. The petitioners have moved an application under section 91 CrPC while praying that the prosecution may be directed to produce the statements of various prosecutions witnesses recorded by the Executive Magistrate and the police officials during the investigation conducted in connection with the allegations levelled in the FIR No.113/2012. The statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 and 164 CrPC are sought to be summoned. The said application filed by the petitioners has been rejected by the trial court vide order dated 04.08.2014, while observing as under: “I have heard both parties and paruse all the documents in the file. It is relevant to mention here that initially the matter was investigated by I.O., Ratangarh, District Churu thereafter it was investigated by C.I.D. (C.B) and challan was filed u/s 306 of I.P.C. only against mother-in-law. The father-in-law and husband of diseased were exonerated. It is relevant to mention here that initially the matter was investigated by I.O., Ratangarh, District Churu thereafter it was investigated by C.I.D. (C.B) and challan was filed u/s 306 of I.P.C. only against mother-in-law. The father-in-law and husband of diseased were exonerated. Aggrieved, the complainant filed petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. before Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and the matter was finally handed over to C.B.I. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court passed an order vide dated 27th April 2013 with a direction to transfer the file of the case to the s.P.East C.B.I., Jodhpur, Who shall direct registration of the regular case and thereafter shall have the investigation of case carried out fairly under his own supervision and completed the investigation in the period of six months from the date of the order. Consequently the case has been registered by C.B.I, Jodhpur branch and taken-up for investigation. The I.O. of C.B.I. filed the fresh Challan against Shri Vijay Kumar Dhaka, Shri Sugan Chand and Smt. Chuka Devi u/s 304 B and s.498 A read with section 34 of Indian Penal code. All the relevant documents and statements recorded by I.O. C.B.I aere there with the file. Section 91 of Cr.P.C. empowers court to pass and order for the production of any document which is necessary or desirable for the purpose of any investigation, enquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code by or before such court. In my opinion though the matter is at the stage of argument on charges only it is not deemed fit to pass an order to produce above mention documents and statements which are earlier considered by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court Rajasthan and directed further registration of the case and hold fair investigation by C.B.I. under the supervision of S.P East 9 C.B.I., Jodhpur. A fresh regular case was registered by C.B.I., thereafter I.O., C.B.I. conducted fresh further investigation of the case and recorded various statements u/s 161, Cr.PC of all the witnesses concerned and also collect relevant evidences and produced those along with charge sheet, which are apparently seems to be sufficient and necessary for trial of the case in hand. A fresh regular case was registered by C.B.I., thereafter I.O., C.B.I. conducted fresh further investigation of the case and recorded various statements u/s 161, Cr.PC of all the witnesses concerned and also collect relevant evidences and produced those along with charge sheet, which are apparently seems to be sufficient and necessary for trial of the case in hand. Hence, the application filed u/s 91 of Cr.P.C. is rejected and the file shall put forward for argument on charges on 20 August 2013 rc rd vfHk- pqdh nsoh dh ts@lh vof/k c<kbZ tkrh gSA^^ Assailing the validity of order dated 04.08.2014, the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of enquiry under section 174 CrPC by the Executive Magistrate and the statements of the witnesses recorded under sections 161 CrPC and 164 CrPC by the police, while conducting investigation in connection with the allegations levelled in the FIR No.113/2012 of Police Station, Ratangarh, were submitted by the police along with charge-sheet filed against the petitioner Smt. Chuki Devi in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tara Nagar, who has sent the same to the Additional Sessions Judge, Tara Nagar after committal of the case for conducting trial against the petitioner – Chuki Devi. Later on, the said documents were handed over to the CBI by the Rajasthan Police, however, the CBI, after conducting fresh investigation, has not submitted the said documents along with charge-sheet but withheld the same. It is contended that the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 174 CrPC by the Executive Magistrate and by the police under section 161 CrPC and section 164 CrPC are covered under the definition of 'previous statement' and those documents are required by the petitioners to put the prosecution witnesses for the purpose of contradiction, improvement and omissions at the time of cross-examination during the trial. It is contended that prayer of the petitioners for summoning of said documents was liable to be accepted but the learned court below has rejected the said prayer of the petitioners without considering the arguments advanced by the petitioners that those documents are required to the petitioners to put the prosecution witnesses for the purpose of contradiction, improvement and omissions at the time of cross-examination during the trial. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on decisions of this Court in Jagnandan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, 2008(1)Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 8 and Jaikam Khan vs. State of Rajasthan, 2009(1) RLW (Raj.) 376 and argued that the statements recorded by the Executive Magistrate as well as the police during the course of investigation are necessary for the purpose of just decision of the case, therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial court may be set aside and the application filed by the petitioners under section 91 CrPC before the trial court may be allowed. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I. has argued that while filing the charge-sheet against the petitioners, the CBI has not relied upon the documents sought to be summoned by the petitioners and therefore, the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioners preferred under section 91 CrPC. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I. has further argued that the application filed by the petitioners under section 91 CrPC is even not maintainable because the documents sought to be summoned by the petitioner may be necessary for them at the time of putting their defence, whereas till date, the trial court has not even framed the charges against the petitioner and, therefore, at the time of framing of charges, there is no question of summoning the documents, which may be necessary for them to put their defence. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.I. has placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi reported in 2005 SCC (Cri) 415. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. It is not in dispute that the earlier investigation conducted by the police in relation to the allegations levelled in the FIR No.113/2012 has been discarded or rather set aside but this Court by making following observations in the order dated 27.04.2013 passed in S.B.Cr.Misc. Petition No. 1962/2012: “These facts are sufficient to prick the conscience of this Court that the Investigating Agency did not act fairly and bonafide in the case. The investigation carried out thus far is tainted and heavily biased in favour of the accused.” After passing of the order dated 27.04.2012, the CBI has registered a fresh FIR NO. Petition No. 1962/2012: “These facts are sufficient to prick the conscience of this Court that the Investigating Agency did not act fairly and bonafide in the case. The investigation carried out thus far is tainted and heavily biased in favour of the accused.” After passing of the order dated 27.04.2012, the CBI has registered a fresh FIR NO. RC JDH 2013 S 0004 dated 16.05.2013 and conducted fresh investigation and, thereafter filed charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offences punishable under section 304B and 498A read with section 34 IPC. The C.B.I. has recorded the statement of the witnesses afresh and collected the evidence and, thereafter filed a chargesheet. The C.B.I. has not placed reliance upon the material collected by the Rajasthan police during the course of investigation in connection with the allegations levelled in the FIR NO.113/2012 pertaining to the Police Station, Ratangarh. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court has not committed any illegality while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under section 91 CrPC while observing that when a fresh regular case was registered by the CBI and after conducting fresh investigation, the CBI has filed the charge-sheet, there is no requirement for production of the documents and the statements recorded by the police while conducting investigation in the allegations in connection with the FIR No.113/2012. Section 91 CrPC empowers the Court to summon any document or thing which it deems "necessary or desirable" for the purpose of any inquiry or trial. If an accused requests the Court for summoning of some documents, he or she has to demonstrate before the Court that summoning of those documents is necessary or desirable for just decision of the case. It is for the Court to consider any objection raised by the prosecution about the summoning of those documents and if the court finds that the applicants have failed to demonstrate the necessity or desirability for summoning of the said documents, it should reject the application. While deciding the said request made on behalf of the accused, the court must perform the balancing act between the interest of the individual and of the society. While deciding the said request made on behalf of the accused, the court must perform the balancing act between the interest of the individual and of the society. The trial court in its order dated 04.08.2014, has categorically observed that the statements of witnesses recorded by C.B.I. under section 161 CrPC and other relevant evidence collected by it and filed along with charge-sheet seems to be sufficient and necessary for the trial. This Court is of the opinion that the discretion exercised by the trial court is not liable to be interfered with lightly until and unless a case of manifest injustice is made out. Prior to the commencement of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, section 94(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 empowers a court or any officer in charge of a police station to summon documents, which are necessary or desirable for the purpose of any investigation. Section 94(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 reads as under: “94.(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.” The language of section 94(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 is akin to the language of section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Asstt. Collector of Customs vs. L.R.Melwani, AIR 1970 SC 962 , while taking into consideration section 94(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, has held as under: “12......This section does not empower a Magistrate to direct the prosecution to give copies of any documents to an accused person. That much appears to be plain from the language of that section. It was impermissible for the High Court to read into Section 94, Criminal Procedure Code the requirements of Section 173 (4), Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court was not justified, in indirectly applying to cases instituted on private complaints the requirements of Section 173(4), Criminal Procedure Code. That much appears to be plain from the language of that section. It was impermissible for the High Court to read into Section 94, Criminal Procedure Code the requirements of Section 173 (4), Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court was not justified, in indirectly applying to cases instituted on private complaints the requirements of Section 173(4), Criminal Procedure Code. 13. That apart we do not think that the High Court was justified in interfering with the discretion of the learned Magistrate. Whether a particular document should be summoned or not is essentially in the discretion of the trial Court.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held as under: “....Except for very good reasons, the High Court should not interfere with the discretion conferred on the trial Courts in the matter of summoning documents. Such interferences would unnecessarily impede the progress of cases and result in waste of public money and time as has happened in this case.” Though before the trial court, the C.B.I. has not objected the prayer of the petitioners for summoning of the documents on the ground that those documents are not necessary for taking into consideration at the stage of framing of charge, the arguments of the learned Special Public Prosecutor that such application is not maintainable at the stage of framing of charge finds force in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi (supra). In the above mentioned case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the question as to whether at the time of framing of charges, can the trial court consider the material filed by the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after placing reliance on its earlier pronouncement and after taking into consideration the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, has held 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. 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. 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. 26. Reliance on behalf of the accused was placed on some observations made in the case of Om Parkash Sharma v. CBI, Delhi [ (2000) 5 SCC 679 ]. In that case the application filed by the accused for summoning and production of documents was rejected by the Special Judge and that order was affirmed by the High Court. Challenging those orders before this Court, reliance was placed on behalf of the accused upon Satish Mehra's case (supra). In that case the application filed by the accused for summoning and production of documents was rejected by the Special Judge and that order was affirmed by the High Court. Challenging those orders before this Court, reliance was placed on behalf of the accused upon Satish Mehra's case (supra). The contentions based on Satish Mehra's case have been noticed in para 4 as under: "4 The learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the stand taken before the courts below with great vehemence by inviting our attention to the decision of this Court reported in Satish Mehra v. Delhi Admn. ( (1996) 9 SCC 766 ) laying emphasis on the fact the very learned Judge in the High Court has taken a different view in such matters, in the decision reported in Ashok Kaushik v. State ( (1999) 49 DRJ 202 ). Mr Altaf Ahmed, the learned ASG for the respondents not only contended that the decisions relied upon for the appellants would not justify the claim of the appellant in this case, at this stage, but also invited, extensively our attention to the exercise undertaken by the courts below to find out the relevance, desirability and necessity of those documents as well as the need for issuing any such directions as claimed at that stage and consequently there was no justification whatsoever, to intervene by an interference at the present stage of the proceedings.” 27. In so far 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, commensurately with the nature of proceedings as also the compulsions of necessity and desirability, to fulfill 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 High Court and this Court. 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 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 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. 28. 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.” In view of the above discussions, the impugned order passed by the trial court requires no interference and this criminal misc. petition is dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed.