The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition, filed against the order dated 6.1.2023, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), vide which the learned Magistrate allowed the application filed by SHO, for permission to obtain the voice sample of the petitioner and the proforma respondents. The Court observed that the power has been conferred for a proper investigation and there is no reason why only the accused and not any other person should be directed to give a voice sample.
Brief Facts:
The informant Sumitra Chauhan lodged an FIR on 14.5.2022 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 342, and 382 read with Section 34 of IPC. Petitioner’s mother Smt. Usha Thakur, respondent No. 4 made a complaint to the Police Station, telephonically regarding the quarrel in Village Sandoh/Bishidi and requested that police be sent to the spot. The police reached the spot. No case was registered on the information of respondent No. 4 and FIR dated 14.5.2022 was registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 452, 323, and 506 IPC.
The police found during the investigation that the petitioner had talked to the accused. Police applied to obtain the voice samples of the petitioner and proforma respondents. This application was allowed and the police were permitted to obtain voice samples. The present petition has been filed against that order.
Contentions of the Petitioners:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the learned ACJM erred in permitting the police to obtain the voice sample. The petitioner is not an accused and his voice sample cannot be taken. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned ACJM be set aside.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that there is no restriction on the powers of the Magistrate to direct any person to give his voice sample and the learned Magistrate had rightly directed the petitioner to give his voice sample. Hence, she prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that a Judicial Magistrate has the power to order a person to give a sample of his voice for the investigation of the crime. Therefore, the order passed by the learned ACJM, cannot be faulted for want of jurisdiction. It was submitted that only the accused can be directed to give a voice sample.
The Court observed that it is difficult to agree with this submission. The Magistrate has the power to direct any person to give a voice sample and the judgment is not confined merely to the accused. This power has been conferred for a proper investigation and there is no reason why only the accused and not any other person should be directed to give a voice sample. The only question is whether giving the voice sample is essential for the proper investigation of the case or not.
The decision of the Court:
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, dismissing the petition, held that the voice sample is essential to identify the person and the same is essential for the proper identification.
Case Title: Nimesh v State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Case no.: Cr. MMO No. 129 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Dibender Ghosh
Advocate for the Respondents: Ms. Avni Kochhar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
