JUDGMENT 1. - In this criminal petition filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner is challenging the validity of the order dated 18.10.2014 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Udaipur in Sessions Case No.194/2013 by which the learned trial court declined to summon the call details of deceased's cell phone and dismissed the application filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner. 2. As per the facts of the case in criminal case arising out from FIR no.212/2013 for the offence under Section 498A and 304B IPC during trial accused-petitioner moved an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. in which it was prayed that call details of mobile of the deceased Sneha from Jan., 2013 to June, 2013 may be summoned, but the learned trial court after hearing the arguments, dismissed the application. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that in the application filed under Section 91 a specific averment was made that as per the call details of the mobile no.9461380731 of deceased Sneha she talked with one Dinesh Choudhary on his cell no.7665451500 in between Jan., 2013 to June, 2013, therefore, there is some suspicion and doubt for the talks took place between them, therefore, in the interest of justice and in order to reach with the truth the call details are necessary and those call details could not be produced at his level because the record is available in the BSNL office, therefore, the call details of mobile number of Sneha from Jan., 2013 to June, 2013 may be summoned from BSNL. 4. Upon the said application, the State filed its reply and submits that the application is liable to be dismissed because there is no need to call for any call details in the present case as per the charges levelled against the accused, so also, it is submitted that police has already mentioned about the call details in their investigation, therefore, it was prayed that the application deserves to be dismissed as the applicant has not come with clean hands before the Court. The intention of the applicant is to bring the call details of Sneha whereas 16 months have already been lapsed from the alleged incident and this application has been filed in order to delay the proceedings. 5. The intention of the applicant is to bring the call details of Sneha whereas 16 months have already been lapsed from the alleged incident and this application has been filed in order to delay the proceedings. 5. After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial court rejected the application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. vide order dated 18.10.2014 which is impugned in this case. 6. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties, so also, perused the order impugned. In my opinion, no error has been committed by the learned trial court because for the controversy involved in the case for offence under Section 304 B and 498A IPC, these call details are not relevant. Further, the learned trial court has rightly observed in the order that whatever evidence was in existence, the same was collected in the investigation and produced before the Court and this application has been filed only on the basis of self-creating doubt by the petitioner and during investigation, no such doubt was created by the accused or any other person. 7. In my opinion, the finding given by the learned trial court in rejecting the application is perfectly justified because while dismissing the application filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C., the learned trial court granted an opportunity to the petitioner that if he is having any evidence that can be produced in defence by him. 8. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that order impugned does not call for any interference. 9. Hence, this revision petition is hereby dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******