Authority: High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Order Date: 18.09.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Bhagwan Dass Garg and another (along with Sangeeta Garg and Deepak Sahni) filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of an order dated 01.08.2026.
  • Respondent: Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
  • Background: A written complaint dated 08.04.2020 was lodged by Shri Ashok Nimrani, Deputy Zonal Manager (Recovery), Bank of India, Ludhiana, alleging fraud amounting to approximately Rs 28.99 crore by M/s Balak Automotives Pvt. Ltd., M/s Balak Autos Pvt. Ltd., and the petitioners. The complaint alleged diversion of loan funds, submission of fabricated documents, and round‑tripping of funds.
  • FIR: The complaint led to FIR No. RC0512022S0001 dated 18.05.2022, registered by the CBI under IPC Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 421, 471, 120‑B and Prevention of Corruption Act Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d).
  • Investigation & Charge‑Sheet: After investigation, the CBI filed a charge‑sheet against the petitioners and other accused under Sections 120‑B read with 420 and 471 IPC and related substantive offences.
  • Application under Section 91 Cr.P.C.: The petitioners applied for production of certain documents (stock audit report, loan applications, CIBIL reports, inspection reports, valuation report, sanction letters, enquiry report, legal opinion) that were collected during investigation but not relied upon in the charge‑sheet. The Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, SAS Nagar, Mohali, on 14.07.2023 ordered the CBI to furnish copies of these documents.
  • Revision Proceedings: The CBI filed Criminal Revision No.117 of 2023 challenging the 14.07.2023 order. During the pendency, the High Court (order dated 27.05.2024 in CWP No.34297 of 2019) quashed the FIR and related proceedings, leading to the trial court dropping the case on 01.08.2024 and the revision becoming infructuous on 27.08.2024.
  • Supreme Court Intervention: The CBI appealed the 27.05.2024 quash order. The Supreme Court, on 25.04.2025, set aside the High Court’s order and directed restoration of the criminal proceedings.
  • Restoration & Subsequent Orders: The trial court was restored, and on 23.12.2025 directed the CBI to comply with the 14.07.2023 order. The CBI again filed a revision seeking condonation of a 942‑day delay; the Special Judge, CBI, on 01.08.2026 condoned the delay and on merits set aside the 14.07.2023 order.
  • Present Petition: The petitioners challenged the Special Judge’s order, arguing that Section 91 Cr.P.C. allows production of un‑relied documents at the charge‑framing stage, especially when such documents are of “sterling quality” and have a crucial bearing on framing of charge, citing Supreme Court judgments in Nitya Dharmananda alias K. Lenin v. Sri Gopal Sheelum Reddy (2018) and Kalyani Singh v. CBI (2023).
  • Respondent’s Arguments: The CBI contended that the accused are not entitled to copies of un‑relied documents before charge framing; only a list of such documents must be furnished. It relied on Sarla Gupta & another v. Directorate of Enforcement (2025) and argued that the petitioners had not demonstrated “sterling quality” or crucial relevance.
  • Judicial Analysis: The Court examined the scope of Section 91 Cr.P.C., the Supreme Court’s stance in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005), the limited exception recognized in Nitya Dharmananda (requiring documents of sterling quality, custody by investigating agency, and crucial bearing), and the clarification in Sarla Gupta that the right to obtain copies before charge framing is not absolute.
  • Findings: The petitioners had not shown that each of the sought documents met the “sterling quality” and crucial‑bearing test. The documents listed (loan applications, CIBIL reports, inspection reports, valuation reports, sanction letters, enquiry report, legal opinion) were merely relevant but not sufficient to invoke the exception.
  • The Court also noted that the petitioners were already aware of the existence of the un‑relied material, as the list had been supplied, and that the Special Judge’s order preserved their right to summon the documents during trial for cross‑examination or defence evidence.

Final Outcome

  • The petition under Section 528 BNSS is dismissed.
  • The Special Judge’s order setting aside the 14.07.2023 direction to produce un‑relied documents is upheld.
  • The dismissal does not preclude the petitioners from seeking production of the documents at the appropriate stage of trial, in accordance with law.

Topics: Criminal Procedure, Document Production