Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Del) 1187

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Yashwant Varma, Asha Menon, JJ.
Sunil Kumar Alias Titu - Appellant
Versus
State Of Ut Of Chandigarh - Respondent
Crl. M.C. 3074/2022, Crl. M.A. 12945/2022 (for stay)
Decided On : 05-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
Dr. Malkit Singh Jandiala, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. Charanjit Singh Bakhshi, APP, UT of Chandigar, for the Respondent

The court affirmed the authority of the court to order a person to give a sample of his voice for the purposes of investigation of a crime, and upheld the legality of such orders under Fundamental Rights.

Headnote:
Section 482 - Quashing of orders under Sections 409/420/120B IPC and Sections 8/9/13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act - 26th September, 2018, 2nd July, 2022 - The court discussed the legality of compelling the petitioner to give his voice sample, the interpretation of Fundamental Rights under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, and the authority of the court to order a person to give a sample of his voice for the purposes of investigation of a crime. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P., (2019) 8 SCC 1, which affirmed that a judicial order compelling a person to give a sample of his voice did not violate his Fundamental Right to Privacy, and that a Judicial Magistrate must be conceded the powers to order a person to give a sample of his voice for the purposes of investigation of a crime.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought the quashing of orders dated 26th September, 2018, and 2nd July, 2022, which permitted the SIT to obtain his voice sample. The petitioner claimed that his consent to give his voice sample was not voluntary due to mental depression and that the investigation had concluded, thus no scope for further directions.
Finding of the Court:

The court found no merit in the petitioner's claims and dismissed the petition, stating that the orders under challenge were neither erroneous nor perverse, and did not result in grave miscarriage of justice.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of compelling the petitioner to give his voice sample, the voluntariness of the petitioner's consent, and the timing of obtaining a voice sample in relation to the conclusion of the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed the authority of the court to order a person to give a sample of his voice for the purposes of investigation of a crime, and cited the Supreme Court's decision in Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P., (2019) 8 SCC 1, which upheld the legality of such orders and the power of a Judicial Magistrate to issue them.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court directed the petitioner to appear before the CFSL, Sector 36, Chandigarh, for giving his voice sample.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The court affirmed the authority of judicial officers to order a person to give a voice sample for investigative purposes, and upheld the legality of such orders under the relevant constitutional and procedural provisions (!) (!) .
The court clarified that compelling a person to provide a voice sample does not violate their fundamental rights, particularly under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which protects against self-incrimination, as long as the order is judicially issued and the process is lawful (!) .
The petitioner’s claim that his consent was not voluntary due to mental depression was rejected. The court noted that the petitioner had previously given a voluntary statement regarding his willingness to provide the voice sample, and that the order was based on judicial proceedings where the petitioner’s consent was obtained without coercion (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the orders to obtain voice samples were issued during ongoing investigations, and such orders are permissible and do not violate the right to privacy when issued by a competent judicial authority (!) .
The petitioner’s challenge to the orders was dismissed as lacking merit, with the court observing that the orders were neither erroneous nor resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The court also noted that the petitioner had opportunities to challenge the orders but failed to do so within the prescribed legal framework (!) .
The court reiterated that the authority to order voice samples extends beyond the initial investigation phase and that the process remains lawful even after charges are framed, provided the orders are judicially issued and comply with procedural safeguards (!) .
The court disposed of the petition, confirming that the petitioner must appear before the designated forensic laboratory to give his voice sample, and directed the relevant authorities to fix a date for compliance (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr. P.C.') by one of the accused persons in FIR No.194/2017, registered under Sections 409/420/120B IPC and Sections 8/9/13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, at Police Station Sector 3, Chandigarh.

2. The case relates to the leaking of the question paper set for 'Haryana Civil Services (Judicial) (Preliminary) Examination-2017'. The FIR has been registered on the directions of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The Special Investigating Team (for short, 'SIT') was also constituted for investigating into the case. The accused persons were arrested, and vide orders dated 12th October, 2018, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted interim bail to the accused, including the present petitioner. By means of various petitions, some of the accused approached the Supreme Court seeking transfer of the matters from Chandigarh to Delhi. These petitions were allowed vide orders dated 5th February, 2021 and the cases were transferred to Delhi, where the trial is presently pending.

3. After the cases were transferred to Delhi, the petitioner sought directions from the learned Special Judge to the police not to compel the petitioner to give his voice sample. Vide order dated 2nd July, 2022, the Principal District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI), Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Special Judge') declined to issue any such directions observing that assuming that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana had granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition before the High Court of Delhi, the petitioner had not done so till that date, and in any case, the time granted by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana also stood expired and thus, directed the petitioner, being accused No.5, to give his voice sample in terms of the previous order dated 26th September, 2018, also fixing the date for the purpose as 11th July, 2022 at CFSL, Sector-36, Chandigarh.

4. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the quashing of the orders dated 26th September, 2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh and the consequential orders dated 2nd July, 2022 passed by the learned Special Judge. The order dated 26th September, 2018 permitted the SIT to obtain the voice sample of the petitioner. On 22nd November, 2018, the petitioner moved the learned Trial Court at Chandigarh to issue appropriate directions to the police not to compel the petitioner to give his voice sample. The plea taken was that he was in judicial custody on 31st August, 2018 and was not in a proper state of mind due to acute mental depression and had, therefore, suffered the statement, agreeing to furnish his voice sample to the SIT. Since the learned Trial Court dismissed that application vide orders dated 8th January, 2019, the petitioner approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by moving CRM-M No. 2606 of 2019 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the said order dated 8th January, 2019, passed by the learned Trial Court, Chandigarh. It is the contention of Dr. Malkit Singh Jandiala, learned counsel for petitioner, that the instant petition has been filed in the light of the orders passed by the Supreme Court on 22nd February, 2021 granting such a liberty to the petitioner, which has also been recorded by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in its order dated 29th April, 2022.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has forcefully urged that compelling the petitioner to give his voice sample to the SIT violated the petitioner's Fundamental Rights, particularly, under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. It was further submitted that the learned Trial Court at Chandigarh had perversely rejected the application of the petitioner which was filed claiming that his no objection to the taking of his voice sample on the basis of which the impugned order dated 26

Click Here to Read the rest of this document