Kerala High Court
Snigdha Kumar vs The Inspector Of Police on 7 January, 2025
2025:KER:282
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025/17TH POUSHA, 1946
OP(CRL.) NO.799 OF 2024
CRIME NO.646/2018 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
AGAINST FIR NO.646 OF 2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS-III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
SNIGDHA KUMAR, AGED 31 YEARS,
D/O.SUDESH KUMAR, HOUSE NO.214,
ROSE PARK, JALANDHAR,
PUNJAB, PIN - 144008.
BY ADVS.
SASI M.R.
N.P.SILPA
DHARMYA M.S
KAVYA KRISHNAN
S.SAJIT SANAL
ARYA VALSAN
THARANATH R.
B.G.HARINDRANATH (SR.)(K/378/1984)
RESPONDENT/STATE AND ACCUSED:
1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBCID, ALAPPUZHA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031.
2 GAVASKAR, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KHAREEM,
MELEMUKKU PUTHEN VEEDU, II WARD,
MANNURKKARA VILLAGE, KATTAKKADA TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695542.
O.P.(Crl) No.799 of 2024
- 2 -
2025:KER:282
BY ADV.C.N.PRABHAKARAN, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.12.2025,THE COURT ON 07.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(Crl) No.799 of 2024
- 3 -
2025:KER:282
'C.R'
JUDGMENT
Dated, this the 7th day of January, 2025
Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P1 Order, which refused to
issue a copy of the petitioner's statement recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. Pursuant to the First Information
Statement given by the petitioner, an F.I.R was registered as
Crime No.646/2018 of the Museum Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram. The investigation was subsequently
transferred to C.B.C.I.D and the crime was re-numbered as
167/CBI/TVPM/R/18. After investigation, Ext.P3 final report
has been filed, concluding that the offences alleged has not
been made out and requesting the Court to strike off the crime
from the records. Dissatisfied, the petitioner/defacto
complainant wanted to prefer a protest complaint against
Ext.P3 refer report, for which purpose, petitioner wanted to
peruse her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C by the
Magistrate. Accordingly an application was filed. The same was
dismissed vide Ext.P1, relying upon a judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in A v. State of Uttar Pradhesh and another
[(2020) 10 SCC 505].
- 4 -
2025:KER:282
2. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that, Ext.P1 Order
cannot be sustained in law. The judgment relied upon has no
relevance to the facts in issue. The same was a case where an
application was made by the accused, before the completion of
investigation. The Court held that the accused is not entitled
to a copy until the investigation is over and a report under
Section 173 has been filed. In paragraph no.17, it was held
that the accused is entitled in terms of Sections 207 and 208
Cr.P.C to get copies of the documents, only after taking
cognizance and issuance of process. Distinguishing the said
judgment, learned Senior Counsel would point out that, in the
instant case, a copy of statement under Section 164 sought for
by the person who gave the statement, that too, after
completion of investigation and filing Ext.P2 refer
report/final report. Learned counsel then relied upon Rule 226
of the Criminal Rules of Practice, whereby even a stranger is
entitled to issuance of copies of documents, provided
sufficient cause is shown. In support of the same, the
judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Vivek Nair
v. Puravankara Projects Limited [2017 (3) KLT 93] is relied
upon. Thus, the petitioner seeks to set aside Ext.P1 Order and
- 5 -
2025:KER:282
seeks a direction to issue a copy of her statement under
Section 164.
3. The above submission was seriously opposed by the learned
Senior Public Prosecutor. Learned Prosecutor would point out
that this is not a case, where a refer charge was filed upon
finding that the accused has not committed the offences
alleged. This is a case, where further action is dropped due
to insufficiency of evidence collected during investigation,
which would necessarily mean that, in case incriminating
evidence surfaces at later point of time, a final report
assigning guilt of the accused can be filed later, after
investigation. A third category referred to by the learned
Public Prosecutor is a case, where the crime remains
undetected. Inasmuch as Ext.P3 final report purports to drop
further action for want of sufficient evidence, the
investigation cannot be deemed to have been concluded, for
which reason, copy of the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C
cannot be issued to the petitioner, is the submission made.
Learned Prosecutor would also add that the petitioner, after
filing the protest complaint, can call for the records through
- 6 -
2025:KER:282
the Court, which would afford her an opportunity to peruse her
statement under Section 164. According to the learned Public
Prosecutor, in cases where cognizance has not been taken by
the trial court, copies of statements under Section 164 cannot
be issued. Learned Public Prosecutor relied upon two judgments
of this Court. The first being Athulya v. State of Kerala
[2019 (5) KHC 920] and the second, Saritha S.Nair v. Union of
India and another [2022 (5) KHC 527].
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties, this Court can only endorse the submission
made by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the
petitioner. I will straight away ascertain the nature of
Ext.P3 report, the relevant findings of which are extracted
here below:
"ഈ കകേസസ്സിനന്റെ നനാളസ്സിതുവനരെയുള്ള അകനന്വേഷണതസ്സിൽ നസ്സിനന്നും ഈ
കകേസസ്സിനലെ പരെനാതസ്സികനാരെസ്സിയനായ സസ്സിഗ്ദ്ധ കുമനാർ മമ്യൂസസ്സിയന്നും കപനാലെലീസസ
കസ്റ്റേഷനസ്സിൽ എതസ്സിർകേകസ്സിനകതസ്സിനരെ നമനാഴസ്സി നൽകേസ്സി ടസ്സി കസ്റ്റേഷൻ
കകന്നും.646/2018 U/sec 294 (b), 354 IPC പ്രകേനാരെന്നും FIR രെജസ്സിസ്റ്റേർ
നചെയ്യുന്നതസ്സിനസ ഇടയനായസ്സിട്ടുള്ളതനായുന്നും, എന്നനാൽ ടസ്സി നമനാഴസ്സിയസ്സിനലെ
ആകരെനാപണങ്ങൾകസ ആധനാരെമനായ കുറ്റകൃതത്യങ്ങൾ നതളസ്സിയസ്സികനാൻ
സനാധസ്സിചസ്സിടസ്സിലനാതതനാകേയനാലന്നും ടസ്സി കുറ്റകൃതത്യങ്ങൾ പ്രതസ്സിസനാനത്തുള്ളയനാൾ
- 7 -
2025:KER:282
നചെയസ്സിടസ്സിലനാതതനായസ്സി കബനാദത്യനപ്പെടുകേയനാലന്നും ടസ്സി കകേസസ തുടർന്നസ
അകനന്വേഷണന്നും നടകതണ്ട ആവശത്യകേതയസ്സിലനാനയന്നസ കേനാണുകേയനാൽ
ആയതസ FAD ആയസ്സി പരെസ്സിഗണസ്സിചസ ബഹ. കകേനാടതസ്സിയുനട ഫയലെസ്സിൽ നസ്സിനന്നും
കുറവസ നചെയ്യുന്നതസ്സിനസ കവണ്ടസ്സി ഈ അനസ്സിമ റസ്സികപ്പെനാർടസ തയനാറനാകസ്സി ബഹ.
കകേനാടതസ്സി മുമനാനകേ സമർപ്പെസ്സിക്കുന."
5. It is clear from the above extracted portion of Ext.P3
that there exists no sufficient material to establish the
offences alleged; that it is revealed, the accused has not
committed the crime and that there is no necessity to
investigate the case any more. On such premise, the case is
sought to be treated as all 'Further Action Dropped' and to
strike off the same from the files of the court.
6. Having regard to the above contents of Ext.P3, the
argument of the learned Senior Public Prosecutor that Ext.P3
is not final and that it can be investigated further on
collecting new evidence, etc. cannot be accepted at all. It is
true that in every case, further investigation can be
conducted, if new evidence surfaces, as enabled by Section
173(8) Cr.P.C. However, such an option on the eventuality of
surfacing new material cannot affect the finality of a refer
- 8 -
2025:KER:282
report/final report under Section 173(8), as things stand
established as of the moment.
7. Dehors and independent of the so called finality of
Ext.P3 Order, the option available for a dissatisfied defacto
complainant is to prefer a protest complaint. If that be so,
the right of the defacto complainant to get a copy of her
statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C cannot be doubted
at all. Even the accused is entitled to a copy of the police
report, the F.I.R and all the statements recorded under
Section 161 and Section 164, as per Section 207 or 208, as the
case may be, the only precondition being that such right can
be enforced after the filing of the final report and the
Magistrate takes cognizance of the same. In the instant case,
Ext.P3 final report/refer report has already been filed, based
upon which, notice has been issued to the defacto complainant,
as could be seen from the endorsement contained in Ext.P3 (see
running page no.31). In the circumstances, this Court is of
the opinion that the petitioner/defacto complainant is
entitled to a copy of her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
- 9 -
2025:KER:282
8. Moreover, it is noticed that as per Rule 226 of the
Criminal Rules of Practice, even a stranger is entitled to
issuance of copies of documents, provided sufficient cause is
shown. Needless to say that a final report is a document filed
before the court, which is also in the custody of the court.
In the instant case, the defacto complainant had shown
sufficient cause, that is to say, to enable her to prefer a
protest complaint as against the refer report. The
requirements of Rule 226 is also satisfied thus.
9. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, the
trial court has wrongly placed reliance on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in A v. State of Uttar Pradhesh (supra).
That was a case, where the accused has sought for a copy of
the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, that too,
before filing the final report and taking cognizance by the
court. The facts are wholly non-palatable and reliance placed
upon that judgment is completely misconceived.
10. In the circumstances, this O.P.(Crl) is allowed. Ext.P1
- 10 -
2025:KER:282
Order is hereby set aside. There will be a direction to the
learned Magistrate to issue to the petitioner a copy of her
statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Sd/-
C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE
ww
- 11 -
2025:KER:282
APPENDIX OF OP(CRL.) 799/2024
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5TH
OCTOBER 2024 IN COPY APPLICATION NUMBER A
890 OF 2024 IN CBCID CRIME NO.167 OF 2018
BEFORE THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE NO.III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.646 OF
2018 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED
30/12/2023 IN NO.167/CBI/TVPM/R/18(MUSEUM
PS CR.646/18).
