Delhi HC Declines Mandatory Free Charge-Sheet Copy and Notice for Victims in All Cases, Citing Existing Rules, MHA SOP, and Delay Concerns - 2025-04-27

Delhi High Court Refuses Blanket Order for Free Charge-Sheet Copies and Mandatory Notice to Victims

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on February 5, 2024, dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking mandatory directions for supplying free charge-sheet copies to complainants/victims in all criminal cases and issuing mandatory notices to them at the stage of taking cognizance.

A bench comprising the Acting Chief Justice and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that existing statutory mechanisms, including Delhi High Court Rules for obtaining certified copies and a specific Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for sexual offence cases, adequately address the issue of victims accessing case documents. The Court also noted that making mandatory notice to victims at every pre-trial stage could cause significant delays in trials.

Background of the Case

The PIL was filed by Advocate Vivek Kumar Gaurav , who also appeared in person through his counsel. The petition stemmed from an order by a Trial Court dated September 27, 2023, which denied a victim's application for a free copy of a supplementary charge-sheet but permitted obtaining a certified copy as per rules.

The Petitioner argued that while the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) grants victims the right to participate, there is no general provision in CrPC for supplying free charge-sheet copies, unlike the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). This distinction, he contended, violated Article 14 of the Constitution. He also highlighted the Supreme Court's judgment in Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra , which recognized the victim's right to be heard. Furthermore, he argued that complainants are often unaware of the charge-sheet filing, necessitating mandatory notice.

Respondent's Submissions

The Union of India, represented by Standing Counsel Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, opposed the plea. He submitted that Section 207 of CrPC specifically mandates the supply of police reports and documents free of cost only to the accused . He pointed out that the 2008 CrPC Amendment Act, which introduced the definition of 'victim' and inserted the term in various sections, deliberately did not amend Section 207 to include victims, indicating legislative intent.

He argued that Section 207 is a special provision for the accused because criminal proceedings are initiated by the State. Regarding the SC/ST Act, he stated that offences thereunder are "in the nature of personal offence." He warned that mandatory directions for prior document supply or notice to victims in all cases would cause delays and hinder expeditious trials, taking judicial notice of existing delays in trial courts often related to compliance with Section 207.

High Court's Analysis and Decision

The High Court examined the existing legal framework. It noted that the Delhi High Court Rules (Part-F, Volume-IV, Chapter 17) allow any party to a criminal case to obtain copies of records upon application. Rule 5 also provides for making an application for a free copy.

Crucially, the Court took note of an office order issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs dated October 9, 2020, which directed states and union territories to implement an SOP prepared by the Bureau of Police Research and Development for investigation and prosecution of rape against women and children. This SOP, accessible on the MHA website, specifically directs police to provide a copy of the charge-sheet to the victim/informant without any cost in cases pertaining to sexual offences against women and children.

Based on these findings, the Court concluded that "in view of the Delhi High Court Rules, as well as, the aforesaid directions issued by Union of India in cases pertaining to sexual offences against women and children there is an adequate statutory mechanism in existence for a victim or complainant to obtain copies/certified copies and no further direction as sought in prayer (a) of the writ is merited." The Petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Trial Court for modification of the earlier order relying on the MHA SOP.

Regarding the prayer for mandatory notice to victims at the stage of taking cognizance and during pre-trial proceedings, the Court acknowledged that the Supreme Court in Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra recognized the victim's right to be heard and participate wherever the victim comes forward . However, the Delhi High Court clarified, "There is no mandate in the statute obliging the Criminal Court to issue notice to the complainant/victim at pre-trial stage."

The bench found the Petitioner's suggestion for mandatory notice at every pre-trial and trial stage unacceptable, stating it would "result in avoidable and undesirable delays in trials and is likely to work against the objective of expeditious trials." The Court opined that such a direction would act as "'a treatment worse than the disease'".

The Court concluded that the Supreme Court's judgment in Jagjeet Singh and the 2008 CrPC amendments already provide sufficient rights for victims/complainants to effectively participate if they choose to do so.

Implications

The judgment reinforces that while victims have a recognized right to participate in criminal proceedings if they come forward, there is no general mandatory requirement under CrPC for courts to suo motu issue notice to victims at every stage, including cognizance and pre-trial. It also clarifies that obtaining charge-sheet copies is governed by existing rules allowing certified copies on application, and a specific executive instruction mandates free copies for victims in cases of sexual offences against women and children. The ruling underscores the judiciary's concern for trial expedition and its reliance on existing procedural frameworks and executive directives rather than creating new mandatory obligations via judicial fiat in all cases.

The PIL was disposed of with these observations and directions.