IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR MCRC No. 37542 of 2023 (ARUN TIWARI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Dated : 07-05-2024 Shri Ajay Mishra - Senior Advocate with Ms.Pankhuri Vishwakarma - Advocate for the petitioner.

Smt.Swati Aseem George - Deputy Government Advocate for the respondents/State.

This Court on 1.5.2024 had passed the following order :-

It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that the court below has refused to supply copy of WhatsApp Chats which have been filed along with charge sheet on the ground that identity of the complainant would be disclosed.

Now the question which arises for consideration is that whether the Court can refuse to supply complete documents of the charge sheet to the accused on the ground that certain documents may disclose the identity of the prosecutrix. Applicant has filed copy of the charge sheet, from which, it is clear that Investigating Officer has not masked identity of the complainant and copy of the charge sheet has also been supplied to the applicant.

Under these circumstances, pivotal question which arises for consideration is as to whether Investigating Officer can be prosecuted for offence under Section 228 (A) of IPC or not for not hiding identity of the complainant and whether the Court can refuse to supply all the documents of the charge sheet on the pretext that said documents are likely to disclose identity of the prosecutrix specifically when no such opinion was expressed by Investigating Officer under Section 173 (6) of Cr.P.C.?

As prayed by Counsel for the State, list on 7.5.2024.

Accordingly, the respondents have filed their reply but have not stated as to Signature Not Verified whether the Investigating Officer, who has failed to hide the identity of the complainant, can be prosecuted or not?

In the present case certain WhatsApp chats were not supplied to the applicant on the ground that they are likely to disclose the identity of the complainant but in the chargesheet, which was not filed in a sealed cover, the name of the complainant has been published by the Investigating Officer at various places.

Thus, if the reasons assigned by the trial court that supply of certain documents to the applicant, which are the part of chargesheet, are likely to disclose the identity of the complainant, then the same analogy would apply to the remaining part of the chargesheet where the name of the complainant was disclosed and identity was not masked.

When this Court had asked a specific question to the State Authorities as to whether the Investigating Officer can be prosecuted for offence under section 228(A) of IPC or not, then no reply has been given in the written reply.

Accordingly, this Court is left with no other option but to issue show cause notice to Shri Vijay Tripathi, Sub-Inspector and Shri Ramkumar Prajapathi, Sub-Inspector, who at the relevant time were posted in the Police Station Awadhpuri, District Bhopal and who had approved and filed the chargesheet in Crime No.305/2021, to show cause as to why a direction be not issued for their prosecution for disclosing the identity of the complainant.

Since the present place of posting of the aforesaid two officers is under doubt, therefore, notices shall be executed through the office of Director General of Police, where the record of each and every police officer is maintained.

Notices are made returnable within a period of 2 weeks.

List this case on 24.5.2024.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA)

Signature Not Verified JUDGE TG /-