Inherent powers of this Court u/S 482 Cr.P.C. are invoked by the prosecution challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 07.10.2021 vide Annexure P/4 whereby an application u/S 91 Cr.P.C., for production of call details of conversation which took place through the mobile of the complainant Ankit Mishra, Rajesh Khede, R.K. Nagaich and Anand Kumar during certain period, was allowed by the Trial Court.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission as well as final disposal. The first and foremost ground raised by the petitioner-prosecution is that the accused who had successfully invoked Section 91 before the trial Court had no right to do so for the reason that Section 91 is not meant for the benefit of the accused and also that the said cannot be invoked during pendency of investigation. In support, learned counsel for the prosecution had relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 (1) SCC 568 (Para 25) and in the case of Nitya Dharmananda v. Gopal Sheelum Reddy, 2018 (2) SCC 93 (Para 8) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent accused supporting the impugned order submits that if the call details are not requisitioned and preserved then the same would be lost forever. It is submitted that it was the duty of the prosecution to collect the said material evidence in shape of call details but the prosecution failed to perform its duty and therefore the accused respondent was compelled to step in by invoking Section 91. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Section 91(3)(b) of Cr.P.C. and the order dated 27.02.2013 passed in M.Cr.C. No.9274/2012 (Ajaz Khan and others vs. State of M.P.), the order dated 21.08.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No.16227/2020 (Suryakant Patil vs. State of M.P.) as well as the decision reported in 2015 (2) MPWN Note 66 (Himmat Singh vs. CBN), 2017 (3) MPWN Note 71 (Renu Sharma vs Atul Bhargav), 2015 SCC Online Delhi 9639 (Suresh Kalmadi vs. CBI).