Back
2022 Supreme(SC) 1608
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI., Bela M. Trivedi, J.
X – Appellant
Versus
M. Mahender Reddy & Ors. – Respondents
Contempt Petition (C) No. 555 of 2022 in SLP(Crl.) No. 5073 of 2011
Decided On : 01-09-2022
Ms. Tanya Agarwal, Advocate, Mr. Shashank Singh, Advocate, Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. R. Basant, Sr. Advocate, Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Advocate, Ms. Sweena Nair, Advocate, Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Kumar Vaibaw, Advocate, Ms. Devina Sehgal, Advocate, Ms. Vidhi Thaker, Advocate, Mr. S. Uday Bhanu, Advocate, For the Respondent.
The court emphasized the need for High Courts to incorporate provisions consistent with the directions issued by the court in the mentioned cases regarding the recording and disclosure of statements under Section 164 CrPC.
Headnote:
Contempt - Violation of Court Directions - State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere Police vs. Shivanna alias Tarkari Shivanna - (2014) 8 SCC 913, A vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2020) 10 SCC 505 - The court discussed the violation of directions issued in the mentioned cases regarding the recording and disclosure of statements under Section 164 CrPC. The court also highlighted the need for High Courts to incorporate provisions consistent with the directions in their Criminal Practice Rules.
Fact of the Case:
The contempt petition highlighted the alleged violation of mandatory directions issued by the court regarding the recording and disclosure of statements under Section 164 CrPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the violation of directions but refrained from initiating contempt action, emphasizing the need for High Courts to incorporate provisions consistent with the directions in their Criminal Practice Rules.
Issues: Violation of court directions, need for incorporation of consistent provisions in Criminal Practice Rules by High Courts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court refrained from initiating contempt action despite acknowledging the violation of directions, emphasizing the need for High Courts to incorporate provisions consistent with the directions in their Criminal Practice Rules.
Final Decision: The contempt petition was disposed of, and any pending interlocutory application(s) were also disposed of.
ORDER
1. The present contempt petition seeks to highlight the conduct on part of the alleged contemnors in willfully violating the mandatory directions issued by this Court. The directions which are put in focus are those which were issued in the decision delivered in State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere Police vs. Shivanna alias Tarkari Shivanna - (2014) 8 SCC 913. Para 10 of said decision reads as under:
'10. On considering the same, we have accepted the suggestion offered by the learned counsel who appeared before us and hence exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, we are pleased to issue interim directions in the form of mandamus to all the Police Stations-in- Charge in the entire country to follow the directions of this Court which are as follows:
10.1. Upon receipt of information relating to the commission of offence of rape, the investigating officer shall make immediate steps to take the victim to any Metropolitan/preferably Judicial Magistrate for the purpose of recording her statement under Section 164 CrPC. A copy of the statement under Section 164 CrPC should be handed over to the investigating officer immediately with a specific direction that the contents of such statement under Section 164 CrPC should not be disclosed to any person till charge-sheet/report under Section 173 CrPC is filed.
10.2. The investigating officer shall as far as possible take the victim to the nearest Lady Metropolitan/preferably Lady Judicial Magistrate.
10.3. The investigating officer shall record specifically the date and the time at which he learnt about the commission of the offence of rape and the date and time at which he took the victim to the Metropolitan/preferably Lady Judicial Magistrate as aforesaid.
10.4. If there is any delay exceeding 24 hours in taking the victim to the Magistrate, the investigating officer should record the reasons for the same in the case diary and hand over a copy of the same to the Magistrate.
10.5. Medical examination of the victim : Section 164-A CrPC inserted by Act 25 of 2005 in CrPC imposes an obligation on the part of investigating officer to get the victim of the rape immediately medically examined. A copy of the report of such medical examination should be immediately handed over to the Magistrate who records the statement of the victim under Section 164 CrPC.'
2. On a similar issue the matter was again dealt with by this Court in A vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2020) 10 SCC 505, in which after referring to the decision of this Court in Shivanna alias Tarkari Shivanna (supra), it was observed thus :
'19. Thus, merely because the charge-sheet was filed by the time the High Court had passed the order [Chinmayanand v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 6594] in the present matter, did not entitle Respondent 2 to a copy of the statement under Section 164 CrPC.
20. That apart, the reason that weighed with the High Court in placing reliance on the decision [Raju Janki Yadav v. State of U.P., 2012 SCC OnLine All 856 : (2012) 6 All LJ 486] 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 [State of Karnataka v. Shivanna, (2014) 8 SCC 913 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 420] 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 CrPC till the appropriate orders are passed by the court after the charge-sheet is filed.
21. The right to receive a copy of such statement will ariseonly after cognizance is taken and at the stage contemplated by Sections 207 and 208 CrPC and not before. The application of Respondent 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.'
3. It is alleged by the contempt petitioner that in violation of directions issued by this Court in the aforestated decisions, a copy of statement of t
