The Delhi High Court has reiterated that once report under Section-173 CrPC has been filed, obtaining of voice sample of accused will reuire prio-permission.
Brief Facts of the Case
The instant case deals with a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC. The case relates to the leaking of the question paper set for “Haryana Civil Services (Judicial) (Preliminary) Examination-2017”. The FIR has been registered under the directions of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The Special Investigating Team was also constituted for investigating the case. The accused persons were arrested, and vide orders the High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted interim bail to the accused, including the present petitioner. Through various petitions, some of the accused approached the Supreme Court seeking transfer of the matters from Chandigarh to Delhi. These petitions were allowed in 2021 and the cases were transferred to Delhi, where the trial is presently pending.
After the cases were transferred to Delhi, the petitioner sought directions from the learned Special Judge to the police not to compel the petitioner to give his voice sample. In refusing to issue such directions, the special judge noted that even assuming that the Punjab and Haryana High Court had given the petitioner the liberty to file a fresh petition before the High Court of Delhi, until that date, the petitioner had not done so, and in any case, the time granted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court had expired. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to provide his voice sample in accordance with the previous order and also fixed the date for same. The petitioner moved the learned Trial Court at Chandigarh to issue appropriate directions to the police not to compel the petitioner to give his voice sample. The application was however dismissed by the learned trial court.
Submissions
The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that compelling the petitioner to give his voice sample to the SIT violated the petitioner’s Fundamental Rights, particularly, under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. It was further submitted that the learned Trial Court at Chandigarh had perversely rejected the application of the petitioner which was filed claiming that his no objection to the taking of his voice sample based on which the impugned order had been given when he was under severe stress and mental depression and was, therefore, not free consent. Furthermore, he contended that the directions to give a voice sample were for the investigation of a crime, as observed by the Supreme Court in Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2019 Latest Caselaw 642 SC and not after the completion of investigations.
Additionally, he argued that once the charge had been framed in the instant case, clearly the investigation had concluded and there was no scope left for the learned Trial Court at Delhi to direct the petitioner to give his voice sample.
The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent argued that the present petition was not maintainable as the High Court of Punjab and Haryana had dealt with a similar challenge to the orders of the learned Trial Court, which was disposed of by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana APP no liberty had been given to the petitioner to move this court for similar relief. Furthermore, the petitioner had voluntarily suffered a statement to the effect that he had no objection if the application for obtaining his voice sample was allowed. A co-accused Ayushi had, on the other hand, expressed that she did not wish to give her voice sample. Despite her disinclination, the learned Trial Court directed her too to give her voice sample. She approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana to challenge the order which was dismissed. However, she had already given her voice sample in compliance with the above-stated orders, but the petitioner has not done so. Furthermore, he contended that the accused persons were moving several applications, one after the other, to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana within three weeks and decided all the pending applications. That order was challenged by the present petitioner before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court disposed of that petition along with others granting liberty to him to withdraw the pending application before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and seek remedies permissible under law before the competent courts in Delhi.
Observations of the Court
The learned bench noted that it was on an application that the
petitioner had given his willingness to suffer a statement and the
statement was thus recorded without any force,
coercion or pressure from any side. Furthermore, the court highlighted
that there is no ground made for quashing the order as improper or
perverse and noted that the learned Trial Court had assured itself of
the voluntary nature of the statement suffered by the petitioner in
respect of the giving of his voice sample. The application to wriggle
out of that consent was rightly dismissed. Additionally, while
addressing the second order under challenge passed by the learned
Special Judge, the court found no error or perversity in the same.
While analysing the argument of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that a voice sample could be given only during the
investigation, the court noted that this argument is not
available to the petitioner even if such was the position in the law.
Furthermore, the bench highlighted the fact that the directions for
providing voice samples were issued during the pendency of the
investigations, but the petitioner, by moving various applications, as
noticed hereinabove, in addition to other applications, successfully
avoided complying with that order.
The bench also reaffirmed that a judicial order compelling a person to give a sample of his voice did not violate his Fundamental Right to Privacy, including under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India by referencing a full bench of the Supreme Court in Ritesh Sinha (supra). The bench also held that t a Judicial Magistrate must be conceded the powers to order a person to give a sample of his voice for the investigation of a crime.
In the light of the above reasoning and discussion, the court found no merit in the petition and the petition, being devoid of merits, was accordingly dismissed along with the pending application. The court also directed that the learned Special Judge may fix a date when the petitioner shall appear before the CFSL for giving his voice sample.
CASE TITLE: SUNIL KUMAR ALIAS TITU vs STATE OF UT OF CHANDIGAR
CORAM: HONORABLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments