APHC010557592023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3525] FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 1225/2023 Between: P Aruna and Others ...APPELLANT(S) AND B Madhava Reddy and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. M CHALAPATI RAO The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Heard Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri M. Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4. 2 RRR, J& Dr. KMR, J W.A.No.1225 of 2023 2. W.P.No.44446 of 2018 came to be filed before the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh, by six persons. The contents of the writ petition were that there were disputes over the property belonging to the family of the petitioners and the 4th respondent in the writ petition. The petitioners contended that the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar had adjudicated the issue and decided to make certain entries in the revenue records to benefit the 4th respondent and the same requires to be set aside. This writ petition came to be disposed of on 04.06.2019 by a learned Single Judge of this Court after recording the submission of the learned counsel for the 4th respondent that an appeal has already been filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer, under Section 5(5) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 against the order challenged in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, after recording this submission had disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to pass appropriate orders, in the representation made by the petitioners, apprehending that the respondent No.4 might create third party rights pending the appeal. 3. After the disposal of this writ petition, the appellants herein, who were arrayed as petitioners 5 and 6 in the writ petition, had filed a complaint before the III Town Police Station, Kurnool, that their signatures on the vakakalath and affidavit in W.P.No.44446 of 2018 had been forged and that they had not signed any suchvakalat or affidavit. This complaint was 3 RRR, J& Dr. KMR, J W.A.No.1225 of 2023 registered in Crime No.136 of 2019. In the course of investigation of this Crime, the Inspector of Police, III Town Police Station, sought production of the vakalath and affidavit, by exercising the power under Section 91 Cr.P.C., from this Court. The requisition was numbered as I.A.No.1 of 2021. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by order dated 19.04.2022, following the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) in S.N. Kapoor Exports vs. Saraswati Exports1, had held that the Inspector of Police could not have requisitioned the said documents, from this Court, under Section 91 Cr.P.C. 4. Aggrieved by this order, dated 19.04.2022, the present writ appeal has been filed. 5. Sri V. R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the said order requires to be set aside on the ground that there was a serious offence of forgery and fabrication and that further investigation in such a serious crime would be totally stalled unless the documents are produced before the investigating officer. He would submit that the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan was delivered in different circumstances, and the ratio laid down in the said judgment would not be applicable to the facts of this case. 1 2008 Law Suit (Raj) 856 = 2008 Crl. R 530 4 RRR, J& Dr. KMR, J W.A.No.1225 of 2023 6. Sri M. Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents, would submit that the affidavit was signed by the 1st petitioner and there is no signature of the appellants on the said affidavit. He would submit that in the said circumstances, summoning the said documents would not serve any purpose. As far as the vakalath is concerned, the same also is not required for any investigation, once the tone and tenor of the writ petition and the relief sought in the writ petition is examined. He would submit that no injury of any nature is caused to the appellants, in as much as the writ petition itself was to protect the interests of the appellants apart from the contesting respondents. He would further submit that the order passed by the learned Single Judge, on 04.06.2019, would be more than sufficient to answer the allegation of injury to the appellants herein. 7. The learned counsel would also submit that the application could not have been moved before this Court, in as much as, the said application should have been moved before the trial Court which would consider the said application and would have taken appropriate steps in the matter. 8. The learned counsel would also submit that a similar application has been moved by the 4th respondent in the writ petition and was subsequently withdrawn, as not pressed. 9. On merits, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 herein resisted the said application by submitting that the power, under Section 91 of 5 RRR, J& Dr. KMR, J W.A.No.1225 of 2023 Cr.P.C., could not have been invoked against the High Court in as much as Section 91of Cr.P.C. would apply only to a “person” while the High Court cannot be treated as a person. 10. Sri V. R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel, on the other hand, would rely upon a Judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of ByallaDevada vs. Sivapuram Rama Yogeswara Rao2,to contend that the comparison of the signatures, on the admitted and disputed documents is the starting point for any enquiry on the question of forgery and fabrication. 11. A perusal of the Judgment would show that the case arose in civil dispute wherein suit was filed for recovery of money on the basis of promissory note, which was denied by the defendants therein. It is not clear as to how this Judgment would assist the appellants on the question of whether documents could have been summoned by the Inspector of Police under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. before this Court. 12. Section 91 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows: “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 2 2022 (5) ALT 614 6 RRR, J& Dr. KMR, J W.A.No.1225 of 2023 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. (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. 13. Section 91 of Cr.P.C. requires any person in possession of documents to furnish the documents as directed by the Investigating Officer. In the present case, the High Court cannot be termed to be a “person” under Section 91of Cr.P.C. In such circumstances, the provision of Section 91 of Cr.P.C. would be inapplicable and consequently, the Inspector of Police would not have jurisdiction or authority to call upon this Court to furnish the documents, under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. 7 RRR, J& Dr. KMR, J W.A.No.1225 of 2023 14. In view of the foregoing, we are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge does not require any interference. 15. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J _______________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J Date: .05.2025 Js / Mja 8 RRR, J& Dr. KMR, J W.A.No.1225 of 2023 THE HON’ABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT APPEAL No.1225 of 2023 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) ____ May, 2025 Js/Mja