ORDER 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. The Appellants-Dr. (Mrs.) Neena V. Patel, and her son Gautam V. Patel, are the original complainants who filed complaint case under Sections 120-B, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474 and 477 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, against present Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Respondent No. 1 is the mother of Appellant No. 1 and Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are her brother and sisters. It is alleged in the said complaint that the father of the Appellant No. 1, namely, Late Shri Parmanandbhai Patel had expressed his desire that Appellant No. 1 and another brother-Siddharth Kumar, should remain in joint control of his business and look after the business after his death and, accordingly, a Will was executed by said Parmanandbhai Patel in the year 1986, followed by a Codicil, under which substantial properties were bequeathed in favour of Appellant No. 1 and said Siddharth Kumar. It is further alleged that her father suffered a brain stroke in the year 1994 and his physical condition made him completely dependent upon the support from his family. It is alleged that on 23.12.1991, another Will was executed by her father, which was a Registered Will under which the main beneficiaries of the assets of the father were stated to be Respondent No. 1 and other family members. 4. The case in the complaint is that the 2nd Will dated 23.12.1991 was brought about by practicing fraud and forgery. According to the complaint, the father was not in a fit physical capacity and condition and an undue advantage was taken by the Respondents-accused. The basic allegations are thus against the execution of Will, which was allegedly brought about as a result of fabrication or forgery. It is further alleged that after the death of the father in the year 2005, substantial assets and properties belonging to the deceased have been siphoned away by the concerned Respondents. 5. The private complaint on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur, was initially dismissed, but upon restoration pursuant to order by the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, it was committed to be tried as Sessions Case No. 281/2012. 5. The private complaint on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur, was initially dismissed, but upon restoration pursuant to order by the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, it was committed to be tried as Sessions Case No. 281/2012. After the matter was committed to Court of Sessions, four applications under sections 91 and 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.', for short) were filed by the Special Public Prosecutor, seeking leave of the Court to summon certain documents on record. The matter having been contested, the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 9.10.2015, rejected the prayer and dismissed the aforesaid applications. This order of the learned Sessions Judge was affirmed by the High Court in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 by its judgment and order dated 16.5.2017, which is presently under challenge. 6. We have heard Mr. Purushaindra Kaurav, learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh, and Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned senior counsel appearing for the original complainants, as well as Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel, and Mr. Surendra Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondents - co-accused. 7. In our considered view, the following documents be allowed to be produced on record in order to have completeness in the proceedings : (1) Specimen signatures of the deceased, which could be available from the details of the bank accounts or the documents available with the bank; (2) Statement of bank account of the deceased for the years 1991 till his death; (3) Details of all lockers held by the deceased; (4) Record of operation of lockers for the years 1991 till his death; (5) All income tax returns of the deceased for the financial years beginning from 1.4.1991 till his death and in respect of further financial years, if the income tax returns were filed as regards his estate; and (6) All wealth tax returns of the deceased for the financial year beginning from the financial year 1.4.1991. 8. The aforementioned documents be produced on record and can be looked into by the Sessions Court at the stage of considering the matter for framing of charge. After the stage is over, it will be open to the Court to consider any further request for production of such material, as may be deemed appropriate. 8. The aforementioned documents be produced on record and can be looked into by the Sessions Court at the stage of considering the matter for framing of charge. After the stage is over, it will be open to the Court to consider any further request for production of such material, as may be deemed appropriate. The entire matter shall be considered purely on merits, without being influenced by any of the orders passed in the present proceedings. 9. The appeals are disposed of with the above observations. As a sequel to the disposal of appeals, pending applications also stand disposed of.