Madras HC: accused cannot demand his own representation to the CBI as an unrelied document at charge-framing stage

Court: High Court of Madras
Date of judgment: 21 August 2026
Case: CRL OP/7122/2026
Parties: A.Raja Vs State by,
Bench: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
Outcome: Dismissed

Summary

The Madras High Court dismissed a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS by A. Raja, a sitting Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha), against an order of the Special Judge for trial of criminal cases related to Elected Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu, Chennai. The Special Judge had dismissed his application under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. read with Rule 25 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, which sought copies of documents the prosecution had not relied upon.

The petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No.23 of 2022, which arises from FIR RC-MA1-2015-A-0037 registered by the CBI/ACB, Chennai. He faces charges under Section 109 IPC read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of that Act. While the case was at the stage of framing of charges, he asked for a copy of a representation he had himself submitted on 22.08.2015 seeking closure of the FIR, together with the decision the CBI took on it. The Special Judge dismissed the application on 08.12.2025 (Crl.M.P.No.10038 of 2025).

The High Court held that the representation was admittedly with the petitioner and was not a document of sterling quality, that it fell under none of the categories in Section 207, and that its non-supply would cause no prejudice to his defence. It found no infirmity in the Special Judge's order and dismissed the petition.

The question before the court

Whether an accused can obtain, at the stage of framing of charge, a document not relied upon by the prosecution, under Section 207 Cr.P.C. read with Rule 25 of the Criminal Rules of Practice or Section 91 Cr.P.C.
Whether the petitioner's own 2015 representation seeking closure of the FIR, and the decision on it, is a document of sterling quality with a significant bearing on framing of charges
Whether the earlier 2G Spectrum investigation and trial had any bearing on the present disproportionate assets case

What each side argued

Petitioner: he is entitled to documents not relied upon by the prosecution because they are necessary to defend himself effectively; the decision on the representation of 22.08.2015 is a vital document bearing directly on his defence.
Petitioner: the CBI, the Enforcement Directorate and the Income Tax Department had already investigated his finances for 2004 to 2010 in the 2G Spectrum matter, and the investigating officer there had deposed that there was no allegation or finding of disproportionate assets, so the later FIR was unwarranted and his representation seeking its closure was never considered.
Petitioner: the investigating agency must, in fairness and transparency, fully disclose relevant documents, and nothing prevented the Trial Court from directing the CBI to furnish the document.
Petitioner relied on Nitya Dharmananda v. Gopal Sheelum Reddy, CBI v. INX Media Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court), Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Sarla Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement.
The Special Public Prosecutor (CBI) appeared for the respondent; no separate arguments for the respondent are recorded.

The court's decision

The Court noted from the Supreme Court decisions cited that an accused's right to seek production of unrelied documents under Section 91 Cr.P.C. would ordinarily arise only when the defence stage is reached, though there is no absolute bar before that. It also noted that where the investigating officer has withheld material of sterling quality, the Court can summon it, even at the stage of compliance with Section 207 or of framing charges, if it has a significant bearing on the framing of charges.

On the facts, the Court said the document sought is the representation dated 22.08.2015 submitted by the petitioner himself, which is admittedly available with him and was produced before the High Court. It was not considered by the CBI before the final report was filed. It therefore could not be regarded as a document of sterling quality, and it would not materially assist him in establishing his defence. As to the decision on the representation, though the respondent did not pass any specific order, the completion of investigation, the filing of the final report and the taking of cognizance in C.C.No.23 of 2022 indicated the course of action finally taken.

The Court examined the Supreme Court order dated 16.12.2010 in C.A.No.10660 of 2010 and found no reference in it to any disproportionate assets case against the petitioner. The 2G Spectrum investigation and trial were confined to alleged irregularities in the allotment of 2G Spectrum, and nothing on record showed any specific investigation into disproportionate assets. The allegations and evidence in the present FIR were distinct, so an acquittal in the earlier case did not by itself operate as exoneration in this one.

Referring to Section 207 Cr.P.C., the Court held that the document falls within none of its categories and was not seized or recovered from the petitioner. The representation has no direct nexus with the charge sheet or the charges, and an accused's entitlement to disclosure does not extend to documents having no bearing on the allegations or the evidence forming the basis of the prosecution case. Non-furnishing of a separate copy would cause no prejudice. The judgments relied on by the petitioner were held not applicable on the facts.

The Court found no infirmity or illegality in the Special Judge's order dated 08.12.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.10038 of 2025 in C.C.No.23 of 2022. The Criminal Original Petition was dismissed and the connected miscellaneous petition (Crl.M.P.No.5191 of 2026) was closed.

Precedents referred to

Nitya Dharmananda v. Gopal Sheelum Reddy, (2018) 2 SCC 93
Central Bureau of Investigation v. INX Media Pvt. Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4932
Manoj and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353
Sarla Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2025) 7 SCC 626
Debendra Nath Padhi (as discussed in Sarla Gupta)
Criminal Trials Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies, In Re (as discussed in Sarla Gupta)

Provisions referred to

Section 528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 207, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 91, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 94 BNSS)
Rule 25, Criminal Rules of Practice
Section 13(1)(e) and 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Section 109, Indian Penal Code

Read the full judgment (PDF) ↗

Official source: High Court of Madras. The PDF above is a copy from an open dataset of the court's public records.

This summary is prepared for general assistance only. It may contain errors and is not legal advice — rely on the full judgment.

Criminal Prevention Of Corruption Disclosure Of Documents Framing Of Charge

Related judgments

AP High Court Allowed; proceedings quashed against accused Nos. 4 and 5 ·28 Jul 2026 ·Criminal

AP High Court quashes 498A case against husband's brother, sister-in-law: no S.188 CrPC sanction for alleged acts in USA

The question: Whether a prosecution for a cruelty and dowry case can go on for acts alleged to have taken place in the USA without the previous sanction of the Central Government under Section 188 CrPC

The Andhra Pradesh High Court (Justice Tuhin Kumar Gedela) on 28 July 2026 allowed Criminal Petition No. 5220 of 2023 and quashed C.C. No. 2057 of 2021, pending before the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise, Guntur, as against the brother and sister-in-law of the husband (accused Nos. 4 and 5). The Bench held that the allegations about incidents in the USA could not be pursued because no previous sanction of the Central Government had been obtained under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that the allegations about events in India were vague and omnibus and did not make out an offence under Section 498A or 506 read with Section 34 IPC, or under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The complainant married the first accused on 5 July 2018 at Guntur. She joined him in the USA (October 2018) and led marital life there. The charge sheet alleges physical and mental harassment by the husband at the instigation of the other accused, that the brother-in-law and his wife harassed her while she was in the USA, and that the brother-in-law beat her in front of her husband. It further says she returned to India (Jan-2020), managed a student visa and went back to the USA in December 2020, and was sent back to India in May 2021. It alleges that all five accused demanded Rs.1 crore as additional dowry and threatened her with dire consequences. The charge sheet notes that the brother-in-law and his wife also work in the USA. The order was passed in Crl.P. No. 5220 of 2023 (CNR APHC010357032023). The full order can be found on the Andhra Pradesh High Court website under that case number.

Crl.P. No. 5220 of 2023

Delhi High Court Dismissed ·5 Oct 2026 ·Writ Jurisdiction

High Court declines independent inquiry, compensation and fresh guidelines over December 2019 Jamia police action

The question: Whether an independent commission, SIT or transfer of investigation should be ordered for the alleged police excesses at Jamia Millia Islamia on 13 and 15 December 2019

A Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain, has dismissed a batch of eight writ petitions arising from the events at and around Jamia Millia Islamia University in December 2019, in the backdrop of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 and the proposed NRC. The petitioners had sought an independent judicial commission, court-monitored committee or Special Investigation Team, compensation for injuries and alleged unlawful detentions, guidelines on police action inside educational institutions, and preservation of evidence. The Court held that the case did not fall within the narrow category of exceptional cases that justify use of its extraordinary jurisdiction. It noted that two FIRs had been registered and investigated by a Special Investigation Team of the Crime Branch and charge-sheets filed, that the National Human Rights Commission had inquired into the incidents and reported on 18.05.2020, and that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the University had been dismissed on 03.02.2021 and not challenged. The Court stressed that this was not a finding on the merits of the allegations or on the culpability of any individual. The petitions were filed by different petitioners after the police action of 15.12.2019. The Supreme Court had earlier, on 17.12.2019, declined to set up a single committee and left the aggrieved persons to approach the High Courts concerned. Several prayers had become infructuous by passage of time, and the arguments were confined to the surviving reliefs. The Court did not interfere in respect of the incidents at Aligarh Muslim University, where the Allahabad High Court Division Bench had requested the NHRC to undertake a complete inquiry.

W.P.(C)/13469/2019

J&K and Ladakh High Court Allowed ·6 Oct 2026 ·Preventive Detention

J&K High Court quashes PSA detention over bovine transport cases: no 'public order' link and right to represent not communicated

The question: Whether failure to tell the detenue of his right and the time limit to represent to the detaining authority vitiates a detention order under Article 22(5)

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has quashed a Public Safety Act detention order passed against a 65-year-old man from Doda, who was accused of illegal transportation of bovines and cruelty to animals. Justice M A Chowdhary held that the order could not stand because the detenue was not told that he could represent to the detaining authority within a time limit, and because the grounds of detention were almost a copy of the police dossier. The Court also found nothing to link the registered cases with the maintenance of 'public order'. The petition (HCP No. 35/2026) was filed through the detenue's son against Detention Order No. PSA/02 of 2026 dated 28.04.2026, issued by the District Magistrate, Doda, to prevent the detenue from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of 'public order'. The petitioner said the order was passed mechanically, without application of mind, and in breach of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. The detention record showed two cases at Police Station Doda: FIR No. 0050/2026 under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, and an FIR under Section 299 BNS. Besides these, DD entries dated 25.02.2026, 27.02.2026 and 01.03.2026 were also relied on. The respondents defended the order as purely preventive. The Court heard the matter, reserved judgment on 01.10.2026 and pronounced it on 06.10.2026.

HCP/35/2026