Section 94 BNSS Cannot Be Invoked for Fishing Inquiry; Accused Must First Lay Factual Foundation Before Seeking Complainant’s Financial Records: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Name: Pritpal Singh v. Gurinder Singh

Date of Judgment: 21 July 2026

Citation: CRR-1543-2026

Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 does not confer an unfettered right upon an accused to summon documents merely because they may remotely assist the defence. The Court observed that production of a complainant’s Income Tax Returns, bank statements and other personal financial records cannot be directed unless the accused first lays an appropriate factual foundation during cross-examination. Permitting wholesale production of such records without establishing their necessity would amount to allowing a fishing and roving inquiry, which is impermissible in criminal proceedings. The Court further reiterated that revisional jurisdiction is supervisory in nature and cannot be exercised merely because another view is possible.

Summary: The petitioner challenged the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mohali, dismissing his application under Section 94 of the BNSS seeking production of various documents from the complainant in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The documents sought included the complainant’s Income Tax Returns, bank statements, details of alleged cash transactions, reply to the statutory legal notice, and certain company records. The petitioner contended that these documents were essential to rebut the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by questioning the complainant’s financial capacity to advance the alleged loan.

The High Court noted that the scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited and interference is warranted only where the impugned order suffers from perversity, patent illegality, jurisdictional error or results in failure of justice. It observed that Section 94 BNSS empowers the Court to summon documents only where their production is necessary or desirable for the just decision of the case, and not to facilitate speculative or exploratory inquiries.

The Court held that the petitioner remained entitled to challenge the complainant’s financial capacity through cross-examination on relevant aspects such as the source of funds, income and surrounding circumstances. However, directing production of personal financial records without first laying a factual foundation would convert the criminal trial into a general financial investigation. The Court further observed that even if one factual observation made by the trial Court regarding the reply to the statutory notice was inaccurate, the impugned order rested on independent reasons and did not suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference. Finding that the trial Court had exercised its discretion judiciously, the High Court declined to interfere.

Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition and upheld the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class refusing to summon the complainant’s financial documents under Section 94 BNSS. The Court held that no case for interference in revisional jurisdiction was made out, as the impugned order reflected due application of mind and did not suffer from perversity, patent illegality or jurisdictional error.