IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Revision No. 480 of 2022 a/w Cr.MMO No. 796 of 2022 Date of Decision: 08.01.2024

1. Cr.Revision No. 480 of 2022 Paramjeet Singh Grewal ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent

2. Cr.MMO No. 796 of 2022 Paramjeet Singh Grewal ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Sr. Advocate, i with Mr. Vivek Sharma & Mr.

Anubhav Chopra, Advocates in both the petitions.

For Respondent/State : Mr. Jitender Sharma, Additional Advocate General in both the petitions.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge (Oral), The petitioner (accused before learned Trial Court) is aggrieved by the order dated 08.06.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court (POCSO), Shimla H.P,

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

vide which his application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. for bringing on record the supplementary statement of the victim was dismissed and the charge was framed against him for the commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner in which they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petitions are that the victim made a statement before the police that the accused called her father on 19.11.2017 to attend the programme being held at Gaiety Theatre. She and her father went to attend the programme. They had a dinner after the programme. The accused told the victim that she should go the Mumbai for modeling with the accused’s daughter. When the victim’s father went away to the washroom for some time, the accused offered the victim a drink. He also obtained her mobile number. He called her subsequently and told her that she could become Diva in 2019. The accused demanded her photographs on 20.11.2017, which he wanted to send to his daughter. The victim sent her photographs. The accused called the victim and said that the Choreographer and modelling Director were sitting with him.

He also told the victim that her aunt and maid were also at home. The victim went to the house of the accused after she was assured that her aunt and maid were at home. However, they were not at home. Only the accused and one other person were at home. The accused raped the victim in his home. The matter was reported to the police. The police conducted the investigation and filed a charge sheet before the Court after the completion of the investigation. u

3. The accused made an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. for the production of the documents taken into possession during the investigation of the case. It was asserted that the accused obtained the information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and found that the victim had filed an application for getting her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. The investigating agency recorded her statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. and filed the application for getting the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The application and the statement were not placed on record. These are essential documents and will not cause any prejudice to the prosecution. Hence, it was prayed that the summons be issued to the Investigating Officer to produce the documents.

4. The application was opposed by filing a reply making preliminary submissions regarding the lack of maintainability. The contents of the application were admitted to the extent that the victim filed an application before the police on 23.08.2018 for recording her supplementary statement. Her statement was recorded on 28.08.2018; however, it was contrary to her statement recorded under Section 154 Cr. P.C. The police also filed an application for reucording the statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cor.P.C., but it was not recorded by the Court. T