Trial Courts Shouldn't Issue Copy Of Victims' Statement To Anyone Till Cognizance Is Taken On Chargesheet: Allahabad HC

A bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed this while noting that in many cases, the accused, while challenging the First Information Report, filed statements of the victims, and even lower courts are issuing certified copies of the statements recorded u/s 164 CrPC, which is legally not permissible.

In this regard, the bench also referred to the Supreme Court's rulings in the cases of State of Karnataka vs. Shivanna @ Tarkari Shivanna 2014 and A. vs. State of U.P. and another (2020) wherein it was directed by the Top Court that accused or any other person has no right to receive copy of statements recorded u/s 164 CrPC until cognizance is taken by the concerned court / Magistrate on chargesheet/police report filed u/s. 173 CrPC.

In A vs State of UP and Another (supra), the Top Court had further observed that immediately after recording a statement u/s 164 CrPC, a copy of the same should be given to the Investigating Officer, with a specific direction that the contents of such statement should not be disclosed to any person until a chargesheet/police report u/s 173 CrPC is filed.

In view of this, the High Court directed the Registrar General to bring its order to the Chief Justice's knowledge so that if it is found appropriate, a circular may be issued to the District Courts of the State of UP.

Significantly, the Court also directed that the State Investigating Officers shall not supply copies of the statements recorded u/s 164 CrPC (now section 183 BNSS) to anyone during the investigation.

The Court issued this direction while considering a petition filed by a man seeking to quash a kidnapping case lodged against them. It further sought a direction that he should not be arrested concerning the criminal case.

Noting that in the statement of the victim/petitioner no.1 recorded u/s 164 CrPC, the victim has not supported the prosecution version and has categorically stated that she left her home willingly with petitioner no.2 (accused), they married each other as well, and there was a consented physical relationship, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings given the opinion that the alleged offence was not made out.

Case title - Ujala And Another vs State of UP and 3 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 548

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 548

Click Here ToRead/Download Order