Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Roopa Divakar Moudgil, IPS – Appellant
Versus
Rohini Sindhuri, IAS – Respondent
ORDER :
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.
The present petition is filed by the accused challenging the order dated 02.04.2025 passed by the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.7870/2023, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, came to be rejected. By way of the said application, the petitioner had sought a direction to secure the detailed records, including the Call Data Records (CDRs), pertaining to SIM card of mobile phone number 6362073481, which, according to the petitioner, had been used by the respondent–complainant to to discreetly converse with the petitioner’s husband and SIM card of mobile phone number 9900018233, which is admittedly being used by the complainant. The learned Magistrate, however, rejected the application holding that the securing of such CDRs was not relevant for adjudication of the controversy between the parties.
2. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has approached this Court assailing the impugned order.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the amendments carried out in the complaint itself disclose inconsistencies. The respondent–complainant, in the complaint, had specifically alleged that she came a
The right to privacy prohibits unwarranted intrusions into personal data, and the requirement for Call Data Records under Section 91 Cr.P.C. is irrelevant to defamation charges.
The preservation of exculpatory evidence is crucial for a fair trial in criminal proceedings.
The discretion to allow the filing of additional evidence, such as the CDR, under Section 311 Cr.P.C should be exercised judiciously for strong and valid reasons and with caution and circumspection t....
Accused can summon CDRs to establish innocence, preservation of CDRs for scrutiny, admissibility of electronic records subject to Evidence Act provisions
The necessity to preserve electronic evidence for establishing innocence can outweigh privacy concerns of investigative officials.
The court emphasized the fundamental right to defend oneself and the necessity of preserving evidence for a fair trial, allowing the summoning of call data records and related documents.
Preservation of evidence must be relevant to ongoing issues in the case; requests that constitute a roving inquiry and invade privacy rights are not warranted.
The preservation and exposure of call detail records (CDRs) and location chart of the raiding party should be carefully considered to ensure the safety of the officers and their informers, and the de....
The trial Court must conduct a sufficient inquiry under Section 202 before summoning an accused for defamation, ensuring no abuse of process occurs.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
