MISS ‘A versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.

Citation: [2020] 11 S.C.R. 515 · Decided: 08-10-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
515
MISS ‘A’
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No.659 of 2020)
OCTOBER 08, 2020
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, VINEET SARAN AND
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.164, 173, 190, 207,
208 – Statement recorded u/s.164 – Copy to accused – Case of
sexual exploitation – Suo motu case registered by Supreme Court –
Direction to set up SIT – Appellant-victim’s statement recorded
u/s.164 – Respondent No.2-accused’s application seeking certified
copy thereof was rejected – Order challenged – Allowed by High
Court – Before the said decision could be challenged by filing the
instant SLP, a copy of appellant’s statement u/s.164 was made over
to respondent no.2 – Held: Right to receive a copy of statement
u/s.164 will arise only after cognizance is taken and at the stage
contemplated by ss.207 and 208 and not before – Merely because
the chargesheet was filed by the time the High Court passed the
order in the present matter, did not entitle respondent no.2 to a copy
of the statement u/s.164 –  High Court erred in appreciating the
directions issued by this Court in State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere
Police v. Shivanna alias Tarkari Shivanna [2014] 5 SCR 812, especially
in a matter of sexual exploitation – In such matters utmost
confidentiality is required to be maintained – Order passed by the
High Court is set aside – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.376C, 354D, 342,
506.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: In Shivanna it was directed by this Court that a
copy of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164
of the Code be handed over by the concerned Judicial Magistrate
to the Investigating Officer with a specific direction that the
contents of such statement under Section 164 of the Code should
not be disclosed to any person till charge-sheet/report under
Section 173 of the Code was filed. The Scheme of the relevant
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shows that
[2020] 11 S.C.R. 515
515
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
516
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 11 S.C.R.
after the conclusion of the investigation, an appropriate report
under Section 173 of the Code is to be filed by the police giving
information as required by Section 173. In terms of Section 190
of the Code, the concerned Magistrate may take cognizance of
any offence inter alia upon a police report. At the stage of exercise
of power under Section 190 of the Code, the Magistratemay deem
fit that the matter requires further investigation on certain aspects/
issues and may pass appropriate direction. It is only after taking
of the cognizance and issuance of process that the accused is
entitled, in terms of Sections 207 and 208 of the Code, to copies
of the documents referred to in said provisions. The filing of the
charge-sheet by itself, does not entitle an accused to copies of
any of the relevant documents including statement under Section
164 of the Code, unless the stages indicated above are
undertaken. Thus, merely because the charge-sheet was filed by
the time the High Court had passed the order in the present
matter, did not entitle Respondent No.2 to a copy of the statement
under Section 164 of the Code. 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 Shivanna 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. 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. 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, the order passed by the
High Court is set aside. Under no circumstances copies of
statements recorded under Section 164 of the 

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