Back
2022 Supreme(SC) 1657
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI., S. Ravindra Bhat, J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.
Eega Soumya – Appellant
Versus
M. Mahender Reddy & Ors. – Respondents
Conmt.Pet.(C) No. 555 of 2022 in SLP(Crl) No. 5073 of 2011
Decided On : 26-09-2022
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. P. Mohith Rao, Advocate, Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Devina Sehgal, Advocate, Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, Advocate, Mr S. Uday Bhanu, Advocate, For the Respondent.
The court's focus on the compliance with the principles and directions laid down by the court in the furnishing of copies of Section 164 statements.
Headnote:
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Statement Copy - The court directed the concerned Police officials to respond regarding the furnishing of copies of Section 164 statements to the concerned parties and whether their actions were consistent with the principles and directions laid down by the court.
Fact of the Case:
The concerned Police officials were directed to respond regarding the furnishing of copies of Section 164 statements to the concerned parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the concerned Court to provide responses to specific queries and dispensed with the personal presence of the officers till further orders.
Issues: Furnishing of copies of 164 statements, Compliance with court principles and directions
Ratio Decidendi: The court sought information on the applications preferred by the petitioner and respondent Nos. 4&5, and whether copies of 164 statements were furnished in terms of such applications by the Court, and whether such action on part of the Court is consistent with the principles and directions laid down by the court.
Final Decision: The response was ordered to be filed by the concerned Presiding Officer of the Court within two weeks, and the case was listed for a future date.
ORDER
1. Pursuant to the directions issued on the last occasion, the concerned Police officials are present in Court. Mr. R. Basant, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of alleged Contemnor Nos.1 to 3 submits that a copy of the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was given to the concerned person upon an application made to the Court and under the orders passed by the concerned Court and that the copy was not handed over by the alleged contemnor Nos. 1 to 3.
2. Mr. Basant further submits that copy of said statement was also given to the petitioner, under the application moved on behalf of her by the concerned court.
3. Before we take any decision in the matter, we would like to know the state of affairs and as such we direct the concerned Court to respond to following:
(a) Whether any applications were preferred on behalf of the petitioner and/or respondent Nos. 4&5. If yes, copies of the applications shall be furnished alongwith response.
(b) Whether copies of 164 statements were furnished in terms of such application(s) by the Court.
(c) Whether such action on part of the Court is consistent with the principles and directions laid down by this court.
4. Let the response be filed by the concerned Presiding Officer of the Court within two weeks.
5. List on 01.11.2022.
6. The personal presence of the officers is dispensed with till further orders.
