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.

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 across a Facebook post on 18.02.2023 at her residence and again on 19.02.2023 at her office situated in Chamrajpet, Bengaluru. The petitioner points out that 18.02.2023 fell on a Saturday and was a declared public holiday on account of Mahashivratri, while 19.02.2023 was a Sunday, being a weekly holiday. Therefore, the respondent’s claim of having been at her office on 19.02.2023 is ex facie incorrect. Realising the inconsistency and in an attempt to rectify the same, the respondent, during her examination- in-chief, altered her version and deposed that she was, in fact, at her office on 18.02.2023 when she allegedly came across the said Facebook post. The petitioner contends that such self-contradiction goes to the root of the matter and that she has, during the course of cross-examination, posed specific questions to the complainant highlighting these contradictions.

4. It is further contended that the petitioner’s case rests on two principal limbs. Firstly, the petitioner submits that the private complaint was deliberately lodged before a particular Court, which amounts to forum shopping and is an abuse of process. Secondly, it is urged that during the course of cross-examination, the complainant herself admitted that she used to communicate with the petitioner’s husband over phone. However, when questioned further, the complainant pleaded ignorance by stating that she does not remember the phone number of the petitioner’s husband. According to the petitioner, this admission itself necessitated summoning of the CDRs in order to expose the falsity of the complainant’s deposition.

5. In this background, the petitioner invoked Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. and sought production of the CDRs of mobile phone number 6362073481 as well as mobile phone number 9900018233, which is admittedly being used by the complainant. The specific purpose of calling for the CDRs is to demonstrate that the respondent–complainant was in regular touch with the petitioner’s husband, who happens to be one amongst three IAS officers, and thereby to disprove the complainant’s false stance. The petitioner further sought a direction to the concerned telecom service providers for preservation of the CDRs, having regard to the fact that su