Mere filing of Charge-sheet doesn’t grant an accuse to copy of statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC: Supreme Court

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.659 OF 2020 @ SLPNo.104019 STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR JUDGMENT Uday Umesh Lalit J This appeal arises out of order dated 07.11.2019 passed by the High Court1 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.395319 On 25.08.2019 the father of the Appellant lodged a Complaint with Police Station Kotwali District Shahjahanpur that he had seen a video of the Appellant on her Facebook account alleging that Respondent No.2 and some others had sexually exploited the Appellant and many other girls 1 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.659 OF 2020 @ SLPNo. 19 was registered in this Court. On 30.08.2019 it was reported to this Court that the Appellant was found in District Dausa of State of Rajasthan. On 30.08.2019 this Court recorded the statement of the Appellant that she did not intend to go back to Uttar Pradesh but would meet her parents in Delhi. Certain directions were therefore passed CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.659 OF 2020 @ SLPwas set up and the statement of the Appellant was recorded on 16.09.2019 by Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure8 SCC 913 “… …If the copy of statement under section 164 is provided at this preliminary stage of investigation CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.659 OF 2020 @ SLPwho shall also come to know names of all the key witness(es) involved in this case the health and safety of the victim(s) but also that of all the key witnesses will be in peril. It is also very likely that of all affected and concerned person(s) will leave no stone unturned in influencing the investigation itself and all key witnesses in their favour much before any report is made under S.173 CrPC. All this is surely bound to ‘dent’ the prosecution case. However once the investigation is over and a report is filed under section 173 of CrPC at that stage the copy of the statement under Section 164 CrPC along with other relevant documents can be asked by the concerned person In view of the above application filed by the learned counsel of the applicant Swami Chinmyanand Saraswati to obtain copy of the statement under Section 164 of CrPC is rejected for all the reasons On 20.09.2019 Respondent No.2 was arrested and his application for bail was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Shahjahanpur on 23.09.2019. On 22.10.2019 Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.395319 was filed by Respondent No.2 in the High Court challenging the order dated 19.09.2019. On 05.11.2019 charge sheets were filed by SIT in connection with FIR No. 442 of 2019 and FIR No. 445 of 2019. The charge sheet filed in Crime registered pursuant to FIR No. 4419 states that Respondent No.2 committed offences punishable under Sections 376C 354D 342 506 of IPC CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.659 OF 2020 @ SLP6 All LJ 486 = Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.35612 decided on CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.659 OF 2020 @ SLPin view of that it was bounden duty of the trial court to provide a certified copy of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. to the applicant subject to payment of usual charges Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and it is directed that trial court shall provide a certified copy of the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. to the applicant subject to payment of usual Before the Appellant could challenge the decision of the High Court by filing the instant Special Leave Petition on 13.11.2019 a copy of her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code was made over to 12. When this Appeal was taken up for hearing the learned Advocate for the Appellant reported “no instructions” in the matter and prayed for withdrawal of appearance. Since the matter raised questions of law we rejected the prayer and proceeded to hear the learned counsel for the following backdrop: The directions issued by this Court in Shivanna2 were in the “2. We had noted that the Fast Track Courts no doubt are being constituted for expeditious disposal of cases involving the charge of rape at the trial stage but we are perturbed and anguished to notice that although there are Fast Track Courts for disposal of such cases CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.659 OF 2020 @ SLP2 SCC 537 para 4 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.659 OF 2020 @ SLP (CRL.)NO. 10401 OF 2019 MISS “A” VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR That apart the reason that weighed with the High Court in placing reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court rendered in the year 2012 which was before the directions were passed by this Court in Shivanna2 was completely incorrect. As logical extension of the directions passed by this Court no person is entitled to a copy of statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code till the appropriate orders are passed by the court after the charge sheet is filed. The right to receive a copy of such statement will arise only after cognizance is taken and at the stage contemplated by Sections 207 and 208 of the Code and not before. The application of Respondent No.2 was therefore rightly rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge and the order so passed did not call for any interference by the High Court In our view the High Court completely erred in appreciating the directions issued by this Court especially in a matter where the offences alleged against accused are of sexual exploitation. In such matters utmost confidentiality is required to be maintained. In our view the High Court completely failed in that behalf Though a copy of the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code was made over to the accused we must set aside the order passed by CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.659 OF 2020 @ SLP (CRL.)NO. 10401 OF 2019 MISS “A” VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR the High Court and lay down that under no circumstances copies of statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code can be furnished till appropriate orders are passed by the Court after taking cognizance in the matter. 20. We must also observe that the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court on which reliance was placed in the present matter must be held to be subject to the directions issued by this Court in Shivanna2 as This appeal is therefore allowed Uday Umesh Lalit S. Ravindra Bhat New Delhi 8th October 2020

Summary: In the case of MISS ‘A’ Versus State of Uttar Pradesh &amp; Anr. [Cr. Appeal No.- 659/2020], the Supreme Court accorded that filing of charge-sheet by itself, does not permit an accuse to copies of any of the relevant documents including statement under section 164 of the CrPC. The honorable court tendered its observation while striking down the order given by the Allahabad High Court which qualified the plea of former Union Minister and BJP leader Sri Chinmayanand to assay a certain copy of the statement of the rape victim. The incredible acumen was sufficed by the Honorable Justice U. U Lalit who headed the three judgment bench. Preliminarily an application was filed by the respondent seeking certified copies of the statement of the appellant u/s 164 of CrPC which was rejected by the Additional District and Session Judge, Shahjahanpur. The court relied on the decision passed in the case of State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere Police vs. Shivanna alias Tarkari Shivanna   stating that: “If the copy of statement under section 164 is provided at this preliminary stage of investigation then besides spilling all the beans of investigation before the concerned person(s) who shall also come to know names of all the key witness(es) involved in this case, the health and safety of the victim(s) but also that of all the key witnesses will be in peril.” Later a criminal miscellaneous application was filed by the respondent in the high court to get the certified copies of the statement. The court after relying on the orders passed in the case of Shivanna stated that:  “I agree with the said argument and I am of the opinion that correct law has been laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Raju (supra), in view of that it was bounden duty of the trial court to provide a certified copy of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC. to the applicant subject to payment of usual charges.” An appeal was made to this Court, where it was observed that: