S.482 CrPC | Mere Production Of CDR To Show Absence Of Accused At Time Of Alleged Offence Cannot Lead To Closure Of Proceedings: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court has observed that mere production of call record details by the accused to show that he was not present at the time of occurrence of alleged incident, would not lead to closure of criminal proceedings by exercising powers under Section 482 of CrPC. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while dismissing the petition filed by Manish Kumar Singh @...
The Karnataka High Court has observed that mere production of call record details by the accused to show that he was not present at the time of occurrence of alleged incident, would not lead to closure of criminal proceedings by exercising powers under Section 482 of CrPC.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while dismissing the petition filed by Manish Kumar Singh @ Manish charged under section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code said,
"The contention of the petitioner that he was not present at the time of occurrence of the incident on the strength of call record details that he has appended to the petition would require evidence."
It added, "Mere production of call record details before this Court would not mean and lead to closure of proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In the teeth of seriously disputed questions of fact that would require evidence and the alleged offence being under Section 376 of the IPC, I decline to interfere with the proceedings."
The Petitioner had sought quashing of criminal proceedings against him under Section 376 of IPC.
The complainant/ 2nd respondent alleged that she met the Petitioner in a hotel lift where they exchanged telephone numbers. The petitioner is claimed to have called her to his room where they had sexual intercourse. Later, when she knocked on the door of the petitioner's room, the petitioner allegedly refused to let her in and indulged in heated arguments and also physically assaulted her.
The complainant alleged that the petitioner, being a stranger, forcibly had sexual intercourse with her and later, assaulted and abandoned her. The police after investigation filed a charge sheet in the matter.
Counsel appearing for the Petitioner produced the call record details to demonstrate that the petitioner was not even present in Bangalore or at the alleged scene of crime on that date as he was away. Since, he was not present at the place of scene, the story is entirely concocted, it was argued.
The bench on going through the complaint said, "In the light of the allegation that the petitioner had forceful intercourse against the complainant, it would require a trial for the petitioner to come out clean."
Accordingly the court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: MANISH KUMAR SINGH @ MANISH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6794 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (kar) 338
Date of Order: 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
Appearance: Advocate SIDDARAJU M.G for petitioner; HCGP K.P.YASHODHA for R1