ABCD versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 15 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 10-12-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
 [2019] 15 S.C.R. 1
1
ABCD
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 191 of 2018)
DECEMBER 10, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Investigation: Transfer of investigation to Central Agency –
FIR No.58 of 2018 filed by the petitioner against respondent no.7-
Police Officer alleging that respondent no.7 took undue advantage
of her situation and had forcible intercourse with her – Writ of
Mandamus filed by the petitioner seeking directions that the
investigation arising out said FIR  be transferred from Delhi Police
to an independent Central Agency – Held: The investigation into
the crime registered pursuant to FIR No.58 of 2018 was conducted
by a Special Investigation Team and a charge-sheet has been filed
– The apprehension that was expressed at some stage that the mobile
phones belonging to Respondent No.7 were not being taken in
custody, was dealt with and it was ensured that said mobiles were
taken into custody of the investigating agency – The data from those
mobiles was also sought to be recovered and Respondent No.7 did
extend cooperation in ensuring that the data could be retrieved –
However, the assertion on behalf of the petitioner was that complete
data was not retrieved – Both the mobile phones were also sent for
forensic analysis – It was suggested by the petitioner that certain
pictures may have been taken by Respondent No.7, which data is
not presently available – However, extracts from iCloud was fully
available with the investigating agency – The contention that the
mobile phone of the Investigating Officer was damaged may not be
material as details of any conversation between the petitioner and
the Investigating Officer, may also be proved through the mobile
phone of the petitioner herself – There was thus, nothing substantial
which could either show that the investigation was not well directed
or had failed to look into a particular direction –  Therefore, nothing
further is required to be done – Petitioner is directed that if any
video or audio recordings are still being retained by her, same may
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
be handed over to the Special Investigation Team – It is left to the
Special Investigation Team to consider whether that part needs to
be dealt with in the supplementary charge-sheet which, is
contemplated to be filed.
Investigation: Transfer of investigation to Central Agency –
FIR filed by the mother of Respondent no.7 that the petitioner and
her family members had been pressurising the family of respondent
no.7 to pay a sum of Rs.15 lakhs failing which they were threatened
with filing of cases with allegations of rape and other criminal cases
against respondent no.7 – Writ of Mandamus filed by the petitioner
seeking directions that the investigation arising out the FIR filed by
the mother of respondent no.7 be transferred to an independent
Central Agency; that the Investigating Agency to immediately collect
Call Detail Records of the mobile numbers and confiscate the two
mobile phones of the accused and to retrieve the CCTV footage of
the hotel where the accused took her to commit the offence of rape;
that protection to the petitioner and her family members be given –
Held: As regards the crime registered pursuant to FIR lodged by the
mother of Respondent No.7, protection was afforded to the petitioner
and her family members and the application under s.438 of the
Code was also dealt with – An application filed by the petitioner
under s.482 of the Code is also pending with the High Court –
Thus, petitioner invoked the processes of the court and was afforded
adequate protection – No reason to transfer the investigation to
any other agency.
Contempt of court: In FIR No. 314, as well as in the application
preferred thereafter, insinuation was made by petitioner that
Respondent No.7 had arranged attack on her and was responsible
for the incident wherein she was hit by a car – However, CCTV
footage showed that she was not hit by a car but by a thela (rickshaw)
which prima facie meant that the allegations in her sworn statement
before the Court were not truthful – Making a false statement on
oath is an offence punishable under s.181 of the IPC while
furnishing false information with intent to cause public servant to
use his lawful power to the injury of another person is punishable
under s.182 of the IPC – These offences by virtue of s.195(1)(a)(i)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
3
of the Code can be taken cognizance of by any c

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.