ORDER : Petitioner No.1 is the Head Mistress (retired) Madina Arabic School, Vijayapura and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are Chairman and Secretary of Peer Jalal Bhukari Educational and Cultural Society (R), Vijayapura respectively. A private complaint has been lodged by the Assistant Teacher (retired) of the institution against these petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 177, 192, 196, 199, 405, 408, 418, 420, 424, 468 and 477-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The same was referred under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. and the respondent No.1/Pllice have filed ‘B’ report on investigation. Against the ‘B’ report, the respondent No.2 filed protest petition. The learned Magistrate posted the matter on 07.12.2018 for the sworn statement of respondent No.2. However, the respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. seeking direction to the petitioners to produce the records as stated in the said application. The Trial Court on application being made by respondent No.2, allowed the same and summons was issued to the petitioners to produce the documents. 2. Heard Sri R.S. Lagali, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Gururaj V. Hasilkar, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State and Sri Shivanand V. Pattanashetti, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are accused persons in this case. If any order passed directing them to produce documents would certainly amounts to violation of right against self-incrimination. Article 20 sub-clause (3) of Constitution of India says ‘No person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself’. It is further submitted that the present petitioners are holding the educational institution in different capacity and there are certain allegations made against them and there are also number of litigations filed against them by respondent No.2. Such being the fact, the order passed by the Trial Court for production of documents certainly would affect their rights and they are having immunity of self-incrimination. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Shyamlal Mohanlal Choksi, AIR 1965 SC 1251 (Shyamlal’s case) and Central Bank of India vs. State of Kerala and others, (2009) 4 SCC 94 . 4. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Shyamlal Mohanlal Choksi, AIR 1965 SC 1251 (Shyamlal’s case) and Central Bank of India vs. State of Kerala and others, (2009) 4 SCC 94 . 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently justifying the order passed by the Trial Court submitted that the application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent No.2 seeking production of certain documents, which are in the custody of the petitioners, merely because they are the accused persons, they are not having immunity in producing the documents in terms of Section 91 of Cr.P.C. As such, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 prays to reject the petition. 5. Similarly the learned High Court Government Pleader in justifying the order of allowing the application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., prays to reject the petition. 6. After having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the documents available on record, it is necessary to refer the provision of Section 91 of Cr.P.C., which 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. (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.” 7. On careful perusal of the above provision, now it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shyamlal stated supra, wherein it is held that the term ‘person’ does not include an accused person on trial. In other words, the Court cannot insist the accused to produce the document by invoking the provision under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. which is considered to be self incriminating against him. On careful perusal of the provision and dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is needless to say that the petitioners are accused persons against whom the production of documents has been ordered by the trial Court. Having regard to the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the order passed by the trial Court is required to be set aside. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER The Criminal Petition is allowed. The order dated 07.12.2018 passed in Private Complaint No.7/2017 (old private complaint No.623/2011) by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Vijayapura and all further proceedings arising out of and thereto against the petitioners are quashed.