Section 91 summons in cheque dishonour cases is limited to relevant material, not broad fishing inquiries.

Section 91 CrPC permits summoning documents only when they are necessary or desirable for the inquiry or trial, and a broad, unfocused request in a Section 138 NI Act complaint cannot be used for a fishing or roving search. Where the defence is already disclosed through the Section 251 CrPC plea and the Section 145(2) NI Act application, cross-examination remains confined to the dishonour complaint and rebuttal of the Section 139 presumption. The documents sought here were found largely unrelated to that limited controversy, so their summoning was unjustified; any genuine non-production could later be addressed through adverse inference if relevance was established.

---

---

Issues: Whether the documents sought by the accused in a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were necessary or desirable for cross-examination so as to warrant summoning under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether the High Court should interfere under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The request for summons of a large body of records was examined against the limited scope of Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which permits production only where the court is satisfied that the document is necessary or desirable for the inquiry or trial. The stated defence was already available from the accused's plea under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the application under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, while the cross-examination was confined to the dishonour complaint and rebuttal of the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Court found that the documents sought were broadly framed, unrelated in substantial part to the cheque dishonour proceedings, and were aimed at a fishing and roving inquiry rather than a focused defence. It held that such material could not be compelled at that stage and that any genuine non-production could be met by an adverse inference if the documents were later found relevant.

Conclusion: The request for summoning the documents was held to be unjustified, and no interference with the orders of the courts below was warranted.

---