IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 133 Sunil Dhaitarwal State ofHaryana CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present :- Mr. Mr. Rajesh Nain VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Challenge in 16.10.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar in case bearing No.SC/236/2024 arising out of FIR No.676 dated 01.12.2023 registered under Sections 147, 149, 323, 342, 365 and 506 (Sections 307 & 325 added later on) of the Indian Hisar, Haryana, dismissing the of the Bharatiy producing the CDR, CAF ID and Tower Location of the mobile the complainant and others from the period of 28.11.2023 to 03.12.2023 corroborate the fact that 2. The stated that earlier he used to talk to one Ritu daughter of Sunil, resident of village Khairampur. Later, the family members of Ritu came to know about the same and the complainant was asked in P visit village Khairampur. On 30.11. house of his aunt to deliver he received a telephone call and he stopped his motorcycle. In the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-2879 Date of decision: Sunil Dhaitarwal VERSUS Haryana HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Mr. Davinder Kaliraman, Advocate for Mr. Rajesh Nain, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present petition is to 16.10.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar in case bearing No.SC/236/2024 arising out of FIR No.676 dated 01.12.2023 registered under Sections 147, 149, 323, 342, 365 and 506 (Sections 307 & 325 added Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Adampur, Hisar, Haryana, dismissing the application of the petitioner under Section 94 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 202 producing the CDR, CAF ID and Tower Location of the mobile the complainant and others from the period of 28.11.2023 to 03.12.2023 the fact that a Panchayat meeting took place on 30.11.2023. The above FIR was registered on the complaint of Akshay, who that earlier he used to talk to one Ritu daughter of Sunil, resident of village Khairampur. Later, the family members of Ritu came to know about d the complainant was asked in Panchayat not to talk to Ritu or visit village Khairampur. On 30.11.2023 at nearly 5.00 am, he visited the house of his aunt to deliver cash. When he reached Village Khairampur, then he received a telephone call and he stopped his motorcycle. In the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2879-2025(O&M) Date of decision: 14.11.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Kaliraman, Advocate for or the petitioner. the present petition is to the order dated 16.10.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar in case bearing CIS No.SC/236/2024 arising out of FIR No.676 dated 01.12.2023 registered under Sections 147, 149, 323, 342, 365 and 506 (Sections 307 & 325 added at Police Station Adampur, District application of the petitioner under Section 94 Sanhita, 2023 for summoning and producing the CDR, CAF ID and Tower Location of the mobile numbers of the complainant and others from the period of 28.11.2023 to 03.12.2023 to meeting took place on 30.11.2023. was registered on the complaint of Akshay, who that earlier he used to talk to one Ritu daughter of Sunil, resident of village Khairampur. Later, the family members of Ritu came to know about anchayat not to talk to Ritu or 2023 at nearly 5.00 am, he visited the cash. When he reached Village Khairampur, then he received a telephone call and he stopped his motorcycle. In the SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.28 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 133 CRR meanwhile, 2 unknown persons and Sunil (father of Ritu) reached there and badly beat the complainant. The complainant was locked in an animal fodder room and given several beatings by 7 complainant’s family about this alleged incident, who went there and rescued him. 3. Learned counsel appea that a Panchayat held on 30.11.2023 daughter of Sunil. A present at the spot including the father and family mem complainant-Akshay stating that complainant was handed over to his family members in a healthy condition with no signs of beating or any injury. He further contends that the Tower Location, Application Forms and IDs are essential so as to establish the presence of the family members of complainant Panchayat Nama 4. A sp to whether any witness has denied 30.11.2023. He submits that there is no witnesses. 5. Under the circumstances when ther respect to the summoning and producing the mobile numbers of the complainant and others for establishing their presence in the Panchayat CRR-2879-2025(O&M) meanwhile, 2 unknown persons and Sunil (father of Ritu) reached there and badly beat the complainant. The complainant was locked in an animal fodder room and given several beatings by 7-8 persons. Some neighbours informed complainant’s family about this alleged incident, who went there and earned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that a Panchayat meeting between the family members held on 30.11.2023 about the relationship between complainant and Ritu daughter of Sunil. A specific letter has been signed by various persons present at the spot including the father and family mem Akshay stating that complainant was handed over to his family members in a healthy condition with no signs of beating or any injury. He further contends that the Tower Location, the CDR as well as the Customer Application Forms and IDs are essential so as to establish the presence of the family members of complainant-Akshay on 30.11.2023. Panchayat Nama records no injury, hence, incident alleged is false. A specific query was put to learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether any witness has denied about the convening of the 30.11.2023. He submits that there is no denial of the Under the circumstances when there is no denial or dispute with respect to the holding of Panchayat on 30.11.2023 summoning and producing the CDR, CAF ID and Tower Location of the mobile numbers of the complainant and others for establishing their presence in the Panchayat is not called for at this stage. 2 meanwhile, 2 unknown persons and Sunil (father of Ritu) reached there and badly beat the complainant. The complainant was locked in an animal fodder 8 persons. Some neighbours informed complainant’s family about this alleged incident, who went there and ring on behalf of the petitioner contends meeting between the family members of the parties was about the relationship between complainant and Ritu specific letter has been signed by various persons present at the spot including the father and family members of the Akshay stating that complainant was handed over to his family members in a healthy condition with no signs of beating or any injury. He the CDR as well as the Customer Application Forms and IDs are essential so as to establish the presence of the Akshay on 30.11.2023. Since the said records no injury, hence, incident alleged is false. ecific query was put to learned counsel for the petitioner as about the convening of the Panchayat on denial of the Panchayat by the e is no denial or dispute with on 30.11.2023, the application for CDR, CAF ID and Tower Location of the mobile numbers of the complainant and others for establishing their is not called for at this stage. Moreover, the SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.28 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 133 CRR petitioner has himself the village on 30.11.2023. The complainant has also stated in the FIR that he was caught by the members and his family members including his father and uncle had been called to the village who brought him back. They are signatories of the Panchayat nama. Hence, about family members having been called to village Khairampur. Hence, neither the petitioner nor the complainant denies the presence of these persons in village Khairampur. documents sought t advanced is not forthcoming of the parties, the info determination of the issue involved. to establish the presence of said signatories to the same thing as proving execution of the Panchayat advanced is based upon erroneous understanding of proving of a document. Execution of the be deemed to be proved by establishing a mere presence. 6. The Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar the contention raised by the petitioner and noticed that the relevance evidence is to be seen by inquiry and other proceedings under the Code and the same is not to be invoked as a process of conducting or approving a fresh inquiry in respect to the mode and manner in whic operative part of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar reads thus:- CRR-2879-2025(O&M) petitioner has himself acknowledged that complainant illage on 30.11.2023. The complainant has also stated in the FIR that he was caught by the members and his family members including his father and uncle had been called to the village who brought him back. They are signatories of the Panchayat nama. Hence, complain about family members having been called to village Khairampur. Hence, the petitioner nor the complainant denies the presence of these in village Khairampur. The immediate nexus between the documents sought to be adduced in evidence and the contention sought to be advanced is not forthcoming. When there is no denial as regards of the parties, the information sought for, determination of the issue involved. The application fo to establish the presence of said signatories to the same thing as proving execution of the Panchayat advanced is based upon erroneous understanding of proving of a document. Execution of the document is required to be proved as per law and would not be deemed to be proved by establishing a mere presence. The Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar the contention raised by the petitioner and noticed that the relevance evidence is to be seen by the Court in the context of the investigation, inquiry and other proceedings under the Code and the same is not to be invoked as a process of conducting or approving a fresh inquiry in respect to the mode and manner in which an incident may have taken place. The operative part of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar 3 that complainant-Akshay had come to illage on 30.11.2023. The complainant has also stated in the FIR that he was caught by the members and his family members including his father and uncle had been called to the village who brought him back. They are complainant has also not denied about family members having been called to village Khairampur. Hence, the petitioner nor the complainant denies the presence of these The immediate nexus between the o be adduced in evidence and the contention sought to be When there is no denial as regards the presence rmation sought for, may not be crucial for The application for seeking documents to establish the presence of said signatories to the Panchayat Nama is not the same thing as proving execution of the Panchayat Nama. The argument advanced is based upon erroneous understanding of proving of a document. document is required to be proved as per law and would not be deemed to be proved by establishing a mere presence. The Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar specifically considered the contention raised by the petitioner and noticed that the relevance of an the context of the investigation, inquiry and other proceedings under the Code and the same is not to be invoked as a process of conducting or approving a fresh inquiry in respect to h an incident may have taken place. The operative part of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.28 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 133 CRR “6. On perusal of the version of complainant as mentioned in the FIR, the complainant has not levelled any allegations against them through their mobile phones. Moreover, the call details etc. of the accused persons have already been placed on record by the investigating agency with the challan submitted in this case. Hence, these mobile phones of the complainant and other persons stated above are not required to be summoned. It is a settled law as observed by the P. 148/2012 titled Chandgira March, 2012 7. Having heard learned c through the order under challenge, I find that no valid grounds CRR-2879-2025(O&M) “6. On perusal of the version of complainant as mentioned in the FIR, the complainant has not levelled any allegations against the accused persons, regarding receiving any calls from them through their mobile phones. Moreover, the call details etc. of the accused persons have already been placed on record by the investigating agency with the challan submitted in this case. Hence, the call detail/ location detail and the CAF of these mobile phones of the complainant and other persons stated above are not required to be summoned. It is a settled law as observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Crl. Rev. P. 148/2012 titled Chandgiram Vs. State decided on 22nd March, 2012 held in paragraphs no. 6 and 10 as follows: "6. Section 91 Cr.P.C. envisages the production of any document or other thing which is required or desirable for the purpose of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code, if the Court is satisfied that such documents are essential and required at the relevant stage of proceedings. For allowing the application for production of documents or other things under Section 91 Cr.P.C., the court has to issue of their necessity and relevancy and also whether such documents are required at the stag sought to be summoned by the applicant. Summoning of documents cannot be allowed on a mere asking by the applicant or as a matter of the routine. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court has repeatedly cautioned against undertaking a roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the case by weighing the evidence or collecting the material during the course of trial." Having heard learned counsel fo through the order under challenge, I find that no valid grounds 4 “6. On perusal of the version of complainant as mentioned in the FIR, the complainant has not levelled any allegations the accused persons, regarding receiving any calls from them through their mobile phones. Moreover, the call details etc. of the accused persons have already been placed on record by the investigating agency with the challan submitted in this the call detail/ location detail and the CAF of these mobile phones of the complainant and other persons stated above are not required to be summoned. It is a settled Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Crl. Rev. m Vs. State decided on 22nd held in paragraphs no. 6 and 10 as follows:- "6. Section 91 Cr.P.C. envisages the production of any document or other thing which is required or desirable for the purpose of any investigation, inquiry, trial or proceedings under the Code, if the Court is satisfied that such documents are essential and required at the relevant stage of proceedings. For allowing the application for production of documents or other things under Section 91 Cr.P.C., the court has to deal with the issue of their necessity and relevancy and also whether cuments are required at the stage when they are sought to be summoned by the applicant. Summoning of documents cannot be allowed on a mere asking by the f the routine. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court has repeatedly cautioned against undertaking a roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the case by weighing the evidence or collecting the material during the course of trial." ounsel for the petitioner and going through the order under challenge, I find that no valid grounds have been SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.28 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 133 CRR made out by the petitioner for establishing the just necessity for summoning of the evidence as sought for. Apparently, no such need has arisen at this point of time defence taken denying the presence of family members of complainant in Village Khairampur Nama. 8. Consequently, the present revision petition lacks merit and is based on conjectural apprehension of denial of presence of people in the village and is accordingly 9. Pending application(s), if any, s 14.11.2025 SumitGusain Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable CRR-2879-2025(O&M) made out by the petitioner for establishing the just summoning of the evidence as sought for. Apparently, no such need has arisen at this point of time and there is denying the presence of family members of complainant in Village Khairampur on the date and place as set out in the alleged Panchayat Consequently, the present revision petition lacks merit and is based on conjectural apprehension of denial of presence of people in the village and is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 5 made out by the petitioner for establishing the justification, need and summoning of the evidence as sought for. Apparently, no such there is no reference to any plea of denying the presence of family members of complainant in et out in the alleged Panchayat Consequently, the present revision petition lacks merit and is based on conjectural apprehension of denial of presence of people in the hall stand disposed of. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) JUDGE SUMIT SINGH GUSAIN 2025.11.28 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document