Monday, Nov 28, 2022

Supreme Court sets aside HC order on giving statement of complainant to Chinmayanand

A bench of Justices U U Lalit, Vineet Saran and S Ravindra Bhat allowed the appeal of the Shahjahanpur-based woman law student against the high court order which had said that a certified copy of her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) can be given to the accused leader.

SC sets aside HC order allowing Chinmayanand to get copy of statement of rape victimThe high court on November 7, 2019, had asked the trial court to provide the former Union minister a copy of the statement of the woman, who had accused him of raping her.

Statements recorded under Section 164 of CrPC cannot be furnished to the accused until the court trying the case passes appropriate orders after taking cognizance, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.

With the order, the court set aside an Allahabad High Court order allowing former Union minister Chinmayanand’s request for a copy of such statement of a women who had levelled sexual harassment charges against him.

“Under no circumstance copies of statements recorded under Section 164 of the (Criminal Procedure) Code be furnished till appropriate orders are passed by the court after taking cognizance in the matter,” a bench of Justices U U Lalit, Vineet Saran and S Ravindra Bhat said, allowing the appeal against the HC decision.

“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,” the bench said.

Subscriber Only Stories
ExplainSpeaking | A profile of Gujarat’s economy before electionsPremium
Small is good: Mudra loan NPAs at just 3.3% in 7 yearsPremium
Amid uncertainty, falling risk appetite, India fared better than major ec...Premium
‘It’s a new virus, it’s still evolving, still adapting. We still ne...Premium

Chinmayanand had initially moved the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur, for a copy, but this was rejected by the court, which relied on the 2014 SC judgment in ‘State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere Police vs Shivanna alias Tarkari Shivanna’.

Chinmayanand subsequently moved HC against the order, after which the Special Investigation Team that probed the case filed the chargesheet against him. After the chargesheet was filed, the HC allowed his request and ruled that conclusions in the Shivanna case would not apply in the matter before it.

Disagreeing, the SC said that after investigation is complete in a case, a chargesheet is filed and the magistrate concerned may take cognizance of any of the offences mentioned therein. Sometimes the magistrate may deem fit that the matter requires further investigation on certain aspects and may pass appropriate direction, the court observed.


It is only afterward that the accused is “entitled, in terms of…the Code, to copies of the documents referred to in said provisions”, the court said.

“The filing of the chargesheet 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,” the judgment said.

First published on: 08-10-2020 at 07:47:00 pm
Next Story

Samsung Galaxy F41 with 6,000mAh battery in India, price starts at Rs 16,999

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments