[2026:RJ-JP:10227] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.5277/2019 Chhatrapal Sharma S/o Dayaram B/c Brahman, Aged About 47 Years, R/o 786, Sector-10A, Gurgaon, District Haryana, Haryana. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp. 2. Smt. Vimla Devi W/o Shri Deepchand, Proprietor, A.one Hydro Tech Rolls Ltd., Plot No.e-7, Riico Industries Area, Neemrana, District Alwar, Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None presnet For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 10/03/2026 1. The instant criminal misc. Petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 14.05.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Behror, District Alwar in Criminal Case No.32/2017, by which the application submitted by the accused-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused’) under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for issuing summons to the complainant to produce certain documents has been rejected. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner approached the Revisional Court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Behror, District Alwar by way of filing revision petition, however, the same was rejected on the ground of maintainability in accordance with Section 397(2) Cr.P.C., since the order impugned passed by the learned Magistrate was found to be interlocutory in nature. [2026:RJ-JP:10227] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-5277/2019] 3. Contents of the petition indicate that the petitioner is facing criminal trial and during pendency of the same, an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was submitted by him for summoning certain documents, i.e., income tax returns, cash book, salary receipt, auditors report and company’s balance sheet and bank account details, which were alleged to be in possession of the complainant. The learned Trial Court rejected the said application only on the ground that summoning of these documents is not relevant for a just decision in the case and that it would cause further delay in disposal of the matter. It was also observed by the learned Court below that the matter is still at the stage of framing of charge, hence, at this stage, summoning of the aforementioned documents is not relevant. 4. This Court finds no infirmity in the order passed by the Court below. The petitioner would be at liberty move appropriate application for summoning of these documents at appropriate stage of trial, if the trial is still pending. 5. With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/42