Crime Branch cannot compel documents under Section 91 CrPC during preliminary verification: HC

29/09/2026

JAMMU, Sep 28: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed criminal proceed-ings against a road contractor, holding that the Crime Branch cannot invoke Section 91 of the CrPC to compel a proposed accused to produce documents during a prelimin-ary verification when no formal investigation or inquiry under the Code is underway.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal passed the judgment while allowing a petition filed by Jaydeep Singh Jadeja, Director of M/s Ashpura Road Lines. The court quas-hed the complaint titled Crime Branch vs Jaydeep Singh Jadeja under Section 175 IPC as well as the trial court's order dated February 27, 2024, by which process had been issued against him.
The case arose from a complaint lodged by Mohd. Shafiq Sohil, alleging that Jadeja had duped him of Rs. 40 lakh in connection with a sub-contract relating to EPC-mode construction of a stretch of National Highway-1, now NH-44, between kilometre 172 and 182 in Jammu and Kashmir.
During preliminary verification of the complaint, the Crime Branch sought records and information from the petitioner and subsequently issued notices under Section 91 CrPC. It was alleged that he failed to furnish the requisite records and cooperate with the agency, following which a complaint under Section 175 IPC was instituted.
The petitioner challenged the proceedings, contending that Section 91 CrPC could not be invoked as the Crime Branch was only conducting a preliminary verification and no investigation or inquiry contemplated under the Code had commenced.
The High Court noted the submission of the Government counsel that no formal investigation or inquiry under the CrPC was underway and that the Crime Branch was conducting only a preliminary verification to determine whether registration of an FIR was warranted.
Examining the scope of Section 91 CrPC, the court held that the provision permits production of documents where such production is necessary or desirable for an investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code.
The court observed that the purpose of preliminary verification is limited to determining whether the allegations disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and that such verification cannot assume the character of an investigation into the truthfulness of the allegations.
Justice Oswal held that during such preliminary verification, the Enquiry Officer cannot compel a proposed accused to furnish documents or information.
The High Court also found that the trial court had issued process against the petitioner in a mechanical manner. It held that once recourse to Section 91 CrPC itself was impermissible, a complaint under Section 175 IPC alleging non-compliance with such a notice could not be sustained.
Holding that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, the court quashed the complaint and the summoning order.
The court, however, clarified that the Enquiry Officer would remain at liberty to proceed with the original complaint in accordance with law.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty