IMPORTANT POINTS
The prohibition is applicable so long as the final report has not been filed and the only exception made therein is that copy of the Sec. 164 statement is to be given to the investigating officer.

ORDER :

The petitioner herein is the defacto complainant in Crime No. 478/2019 of Ezhukone Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs. 451, 341, 354, 354D and 509 of the I.P.C. It is stated that the statement of the petitioner has been recorded by the competent Magistrate concerned. The statement of the petitioner, as the defacto complainant in this case, is stated to have been duly recorded by the competent Magistrate in terms of the provisions contained in Sec.164 of the Cr.P.C. According to the petitioner, she needs a copy of said Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. statement given by her and for that purpose, she has submitted an application as Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.3048/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kottarakkara, who is dealing with the case in the abovesaid crime, for issuance of a certified copy of her abovesaid Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. statement.

2. The learned Magistrate by the impugned Annx. A-1 order dated 2.8.2019 has rejected the said plea on the ground that final report has not so far been submitted in this case. It is this order at Anx.A-1 that is under in this Criminal Miscellaneous Case. The prayers in this Crl.M.C. filed under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. are as follows:

“1. Issue appropriate directions directing the JFMC-1, Kottarakkara, where in Crime No. 478/2019 to the petitioner to furnish copy of the statement recorded under section 164 Criminal Procedure Code.

2. Pass such other and further reliefs, as may be prayed for hereafter and deemed fit and proper, in the interest of justice.”

3. Heard Ms.B.Kalliani Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (defacto complainant) and Sri. T.R.Renjith, learned Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State.

4. Ms.B.Kalliani Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner defacto complainant would point out that statement recorded under Sec. 164 of the Cr.P.C. by the competent Magistrate is a public document and that according to Sec.76 of the Indian Evidence Act, every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefore, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies. Further that since the said statement is public document, the copy of the same is to be furnished to an applicant on payment of prescribed fee thereof. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would point out that it is mandated in Sec. 154(2) of the Cr.P.C. that a copy of the information so recorded under Sec. 154(1) of the Cr.P.C. shall be given forthwith free of cost to the informant. Accordingly, it is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the abovesaid provision made by the Parliament in Sec. 154(2) of the Cr.P.C., though it is in the context of the statement made by the first informant under Sec. 154 of the Cr.P.C., would throw light about the legislative policy and that the applicant is entitled, as of right, to get a certified copy of the Sec. 164 statement, etc.

5. In the decision in Naresh Kumar Yaday v. Ravindra Kumar & ors. [(2008) 1 SCC 632], the Apex Court, while discussing the scope of ambit of Sec. 207 of the Cr.P.C. has observed that the accused and the informant therein have referred to several portions of the case diary. In the said decision, the Apex Court has observed that it is baffling to note that the accused and the informant referred to particular portions of the case diary and that at that stage of the bail application, they legally could not have got access to such materials. The Apex Court has therein has also held that