Back
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Arvind Kumar Verma, J.
Prahlad Rathour – Petitioner
versus
State of Chhattisgarh through
Station House Officer – Respondent
Cr.M.P.No.314 of 2025
Decided on 23.4.2025
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate
For the State/Respondent: Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Right to Privacy is essential for maintaining human dignity and is one of fundamental components of democracy.
(2) In digital age, data is a valuable resource that shouldn’t be unregulated – India’s time for a robust data protection regime has come.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 294, 323, 506, 376, and 376(2)(n) – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528 – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Deceptive physical and sexual assault and making of obscene videos – Petitioner, a Food Inspector, deceived prosecutrix by concealing his marital status – Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining reliability and credibility of version, does not fall within arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of BNSS) – Trial Court has rightly rejected prayer to access and view Facebook or Instagram account of prosecutrix in trial Court – If permission is granted to examine Facebook or Instagram account of prosecutrix as also to play audio record concerning prosecutrix, then privacy of victim may be compromised – In view of material on record, it cannot be held that impugned proceedings are manifestly attended with malafide and maliciously instituted with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on accused and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge – Quashing petition dismissed. (Paras 19, 20 and 21)
(B) Constitution of India – Article 21 – Right to Privacy – Right to Privacy is essential for maintaining human dignity and is one of fundamental components of democracy – It upholds one’s rights as well as those of other people – Privacy often relates to modern information and communication technologies and is based on principle of natural rights – Right to Freedom should be carefully examined by Parliament and Supreme Court, and means for balancing conflicting rights to privacy and freedom of expression should be developed – In digital age, data is a valuable resource that shouldn’t be unregulated – India’s time for a robust data protection regime has come. (Paras 16 and 17)
Result: Cr.M.P. dismissed.
ORDER (CAV)
This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, which stems from the FIR dated 28.2.2023, lodged at Police Station Khamardih, Raipur, against the petitioner under Sections 294, 323, 506, 376, and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecutrix alleged that the petitioner, a Food Inspector, deceived her by concealing his marital status, threatened her with the release of obscene videos, and subjected her to physical and sexual assault. Charge-sheet was filed on 13.06.2023, bearing No. 154/2023, and the trial commenced with the prosecutrix’s examination on 29.04.2024 and cross-examination on 11.07.2024. Petitioner is constrained to approach this Court to impugn and assail the action of Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur, in respect to case bearing No. 30/2023 (State v/s Prahlad Rathour & Anr), wherein the learned Special Judge has denied permission to defense to open/examine the Facebook or Instagram account of the prosecutrix in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as also, to play the audio record concerning the prosecutrix and examine the prosecutrix thereof. Therefore, the petitioner is invoking the benign jurisdiction of this Court, as the denial of permission deprives the trial of the petitioner and the opportunity to effectively challenge the prosecutrix’s allegations through evidence.
2. The brief factual background of the prosecution case is that the prosecutrix lodged an FIR against the present petitioner on 28.02.2023 under Sections 294, 323, 506, 376, and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The allegation levelled against the petitioner are that the prosecutrix is a Zila Panchayat Member in Baloda Bazar District. The petitioner, who is a Food Inspector, first met the prosecutrix at Baloda Bazar Collector Office in connection with work related to a Society matter. As per the allegations, the prosecutrix and the petitioner began communicating over calls and grew closer over time. Approximately 18-19 months later, the prosecutrix came into knowledge that the petitioner- Prahlad Rathour already married person and had two children. Allegedly, when the prosecutrix confronted the petitioner about concealing this fact, an argument and quarrel ensued, leading to the severance of their relationship. For the next 5-7 months, the petitioner did not communicate with the prosecutrix. However, it is alleged that the petitioner continued to attempt to contact the prosecutrix through various means. As alleged, the petitioner later contacted the prosecutrix using his friend’s phone number and threatened her, claiming he would make obscene videos of the prosecutrix public. According to the prosecutrix, the petitioner forced her to sit in his vehicle (Scorpio) and took her to a Lodge on Kachna Road. The prosecutrix managed to delete 4-5 obscene videos of herself from the petitioner’s phone. Following this, she requested to be dropped at the bus stand. However, the petitioner refused, stating it was too late for buses and suggested they stay at the lodge. This led to a heated argument and a physical altercation. The prosecutrix alleged that the petitioner forcibly took her to a lodge, where he blackmailed and physically assaulted her. He is accused of tying her hands and legs, coercing her, and restraining her until the next day. The petitioner then promised to drop her at a location but instead drove elsewhere. While traveling, he allegedly involved others, including Anita Sahu and Pramila Sahu, who, along with the petitioner, physically assaulted the prosecutrix and took her belongings. Later, she was allegedly abandoned at Baloda Bazar during the night. Later, the prosecutrix lodged an FIR on 28.02.2023 at Police Station Khamardih, Raipur. The charge-sheet was filed by the prosecution on 13.06.2023, bearing No. 154/2023.
3. After the filing of the charge-sheet on 13.06.2023, charges were framed against the petitioner, and the trial commenced. As part of t
