The Delhi High Court has set aside a notice issued by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to retired Chhattisgarh High Court judge Justice I.M. Quddusi in a corruption-related case, holding that Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) cannot be used to forcibly seek personal information from an accused or witness.
The court observed that the provision is meant solely for the production of existing documents or material objects required for investigation and cannot be stretched to compel an individual to disclose private details such as mobile numbers, bank account information, or names of domestic staff.
No Forced Self-Incrimination Allowed
The High Court made it clear that compelling an accused to provide information based on personal knowledge amounts to testimonial compulsion, which is prohibited under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The bench stated that no person can be forced to give statements or written details that may incriminate them, regardless of the stage of investigation.
The court emphasized that Section 91 does not authorize investigating agencies to demand information that requires the accused to recall, explain, or generate details from memory.
Limited Purpose of Section 91 CrPC
Clarifying the legal position, the court said that Section 91 can only be invoked to call for documents or items that already exist. It cannot be used as a tool to extract personal explanations or confidential information from an accused under the guise of investigation.
Alternative Legal Routes Available to CBI
The court noted that the CBI has other lawful options if it requires information for investigation. These include recording statements under Section 161 CrPC, where the individual has the right to remain silent, or directly obtaining records from banks, telecom service providers, or other institutions.
The bench underlined that investigative convenience cannot override constitutional safeguards and individual rights.
Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents
Referring to multiple Supreme Court judgments, the Delhi High Court reiterated that Section 91 CrPC cannot be misused to compel an accused to produce evidence against themselves. The provision is intended only to facilitate access to existing evidence, not to create new evidence through coercion.
Background of the Case
The case pertains to a corruption probe involving Justice I.M. Quddusi, a retired judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court. During the investigation, the CBI issued a notice seeking his mobile numbers, bank account details including statements, and information about his driver and domestic help.
Justice Quddusi challenged the notice before the trial court, arguing that it violated his constitutional rights. The trial court quashed the notice, a decision later challenged by the CBI before the Delhi High Court. The High Court upheld the trial court’s order, dismissing the CBI’s appeal.
