1 2025:CGHC:41455 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 602 of 2020 Smt. Vimla Kashyap W/o Shri Kartikeshwar Prasad Kashyap Aged About 51 Years Occupation Housewife, R/o Village- Misda, Police Station And Tehsil Nawagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Law And Legislative Affairs, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Nikhil Kaushik S/o Late Shri Chandrashekhar Kaushik Aged About 38 Years R/o Saraswati Rice Mill, Akaltara, Police Station Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Pushpa Kaushi W/o Late Shri Chandrashekhar Kaushik Aged About 57 Years R/o Saraswati Rice Mill, Akaltara, Police Station Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 For Applicant(s) : Mr. Mirza Kaisher Beg, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A. For Respondents No.2 and 3 : Mr. Sumit Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 18 /08/2025 1. The present Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 13.02.2020 passed by the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir-Champa in Sessions Trial No.55/2019, whereby the application filed by the applicant for directing production of call detail records and data of the mobile phone bearing IMEI No. 865241038555730, Model No. A37FW seized in Crime No. 288/2018, has been rejected. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant is the mother of deceased Chetna Kaushik, who was married to accused Nikhil Kaushik on 01.06.2010. It is alleged that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and in-laws on account of the alleged illicit relationship of accused Nikhil with his sister-in-law Gayatri. On 14.09.2018, Chetna was found dead in her matrimonial house under suspicious circumstances. On the complaint lodged by the applicant, FIR was registered under Sections 306/34 and 498A IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was filed and the trial is 3 pending before the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir- Champa. During trial, the applicant moved an application for summoning call detail records of the seized mobile phone, which came to be rejected by the impugned order. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is illegal and unsustainable inasmuch as the call records and voice recordings stored in the mobile phone constitute material evidence which has been deliberately suppressed by the investigating agency to shield the accused. He further submits that the trial Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by not summoning such vital evidence which goes to the root of the prosecution case. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 supported the impugned order submitted that the phone in question has already been seized during investigation, and no call detail record has been brought on record by the prosecution. He further submitted that the trial Court has rightly observed that the Court cannot direct the prosecution to produce any document not forming part of the investigation, and the parties are free to lead their evidence in support of their respective case. 5. I have heard rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. The scope of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. is limited to examining the legality, correctness, or propriety of the order impugned. It is not for this Court to re- 4 appreciate the evidence or direct reinvestigation while exercising revisional powers. 6. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the trial Court has considered the application in detail and found that since the prosecution has not filed the call detail record as part of its evidence, the Court cannot compel the prosecution to collect additional material at the behest of the applicant. The trial Court has rightly left it open to both parties to adduce evidence in support of their case. 7. It is well settled that the Court cannot step into the shoes of the investigating agency to collect evidence or compel the prosecution to lead a particular piece of evidence. The revisional powers of this Court are supervisory in nature and cannot be exercised to direct the Trial Court to summon materials which were not brought on record during investigation. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the order passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, or impropriety so as to warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction. 9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil