Brief facts of the case
The Appellant’s father complained to Kotwali Police station, Shahjahanpur that he had seen a video of the appellant on her Facebook account. He alleged that Respondent No. 2 with others had sexually harassed the appellant and many other girls and the appellant was not accessible also he apprehended the danger to the appellant.
In the FIR, it was stated that an unknown person had threatened that unless Rupees Five Crores were paid, the reputation of Respondent No.2 in the society would be in pain. The Facebook video of the Appellant had gone viral. The offenses of abduction & sexual harassment under Sections 506 & 364 of IPC were registered.
Observation of the Court
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had entirely mistaken in appreciating the guidelines issued by the SC in the case of State of Karnataka v. Shivanna alias Tarkari Shivanna, especially in the case where the alleged offense against the accused is of sexual abuse.
It was also observed that in these types of matters maximum confidentiality is required to be maintained and the High Court had failed in that aspect.
The decision of the Court
Supreme Court has allowed the special leave petition by stating that the filing of charge sheet by itself, does not entitle the accused to a copy of the statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Order passed by the Allahabad High Court shall be set aside.
It was also stated that the statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code could be provided until the proper suitable orders are passed by the court after taking cognizance in the case.
Click here to see full Judgment.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.