DATE: 21/08/2025
COURT: High Court of Culcutta
BENCH: Justice Partha Sarathi Sen
FACTS:
The revisionist filed two separate
applications under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking quashing of CR Case Nos. 23
of 2019 and 04 of 2020, both pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Class
at Kalimpong. The CR cases arose from allegations that the revisionist had
forged six rent receipts (Exhibit 7 series) in connection with OC Suit No. 03
of 2013, filed by the revisionist to claim his rights over certain properties.
The complainant in the CR cases alleged that these rent receipts, purportedly
executed by the deceased Bangshidhar Agarwal, were fabricated, and therefore
filed criminal complaints under Sections 193, 196, 199, 200, 465, 467, 471 IPC
read with Sections 191, 192, 463, 464 IPC. Subsequently, the trial court issued
summons, and the revisionist appeared and was granted bail in both cases.
In both CR cases, the complainant applied
for the trial court to direct the revisionist to produce the original rent
receipts for expert examination by the CFSL to verify their authenticity. On
13.05.2025, the trial court allowed these applications, ordering the
revisionist to produce the documents. These orders were challenged before the
Sessions Judge of Kalimpong in Criminal Revision Cases 06 and 07 of 2025, but
were dismissed on the ground that the trial court orders were interlocutory.
The revisionist contended that the trial court orders violated his rights under
Article 20(3) of the Constitution, as they compelled him to produce documents
that could potentially incriminate him, and argued that Section 91 CrPC could
not be applied to an accused in this context.
ISSUES:
The primary issues before the Court were
whether the trial court was justified in directing the revisionist/accused to
produce the original rent receipts (Exhibit 7 series) for expert examination
under Section 91 of the CrPC, and whether such direction violated the
protection granted to an accused under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of
India, which prohibits compelling a person to be a witness against themselves.
Additionally, the Court considered whether the orders of the Sessions Judge
dismissing the revision petitions on the ground that the trial court orders
were interlocutory were legally sound.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Court allowed the revision
applications, quashing both CR Case Nos. 23 of 2019 and 04 of 2020, as well as
the trial court orders dated 13.05.2025 and the Sessions Judge orders dated
23.07.2025. It held that the trial court had no authority to compel the accused
to produce documents that could potentially incriminate him and that the
complainant had no other evidence besides the alleged rent receipts to
substantiate the charges. Consequently, all proceedings in the two criminal
cases were quashed.
The Court reasoned that Section 91 CrPC,
while empowering a court to summon a person to produce documents, cannot be
construed to override the protections guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the
Constitution. Since the rent receipts in question were alleged by the
complainant to be forged, their production could have incriminated the accused.
The Court emphasized that the legislative intent behind Section 91 did not
include compelling an accused to produce documents that could serve as evidence
against themselves, citing the Supreme Court in Shyamlal Mohanlal Choksi* and
*Kathi Kalu Oghad. The Court noted that the trial court failed to consider this
constitutional safeguard and erroneously directed the accused to produce the
documents.
Further, the Court observed that the
complainant had not placed any admitted specimen documents of the deceased
Bangshidhar Agarwal before the trial court, making any expert comparison
speculative and unjustifiable. Additionally, the complaints in both CR cases
were essentially identical, raising concerns under Article 20(2) against double
prosecution. The Sessions Judge erred in dismissing the revision applications
by categorizing the trial court orders as interlocutory, as these orders
substantially affected the accused’s constitutional rights. Therefore, both the
trial court and Sessions Judge orders were set aside, and all proceedings in
the two criminal cases were quashed.
ANALYSIS:
This case highlights the critical balance
between procedural powers under the CrPC and the constitutional protections
afforded to an accused. The Court underscored that while Section 91 CrPC allows
a court to summon documents, this power cannot be stretched to compel an
accused to produce evidence that may incriminate them, as guaranteed under
Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The revisionist was asked to produce rent
receipts alleged to be forged, which formed the sole basis of the criminal
complaints. Since the complainant had no other substantiating evidence, the
trial court’s order effectively forced the accused to become a witness against
himself, directly contravening the constitutional safeguard. The Court’s
intervention reinforced that legislative provisions must be interpreted in
harmony with fundamental rights, and that procedural powers cannot override
constitutional guarantees.
Additionally, the Court critically examined
the procedural history, noting that the trial court’s orders were treated as
interlocutory by the Sessions Judge, who dismissed the revision petitions
without considering the substantive constitutional impact on the accused. The
Court found that these orders were not merely procedural but substantially
affected the accused’s rights, especially given the absence of any admitted
specimen documents for comparison. Moreover, the duplication of complaints
raised concerns under Article 20(2) against double prosecution. By quashing
both CR cases and the impugned orders, the Court reaffirmed that courts must
safeguard constitutional protections in criminal proceedings, ensuring that
accused individuals are not compelled to provide evidence that could be
self-incriminating or exploited in the absence of independent corroborating
material.
info@adhwaitha.com