A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment in Miss ‘A’ v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another authoritatively settles the procedural law governing the right of an accused to obtain a copy of a victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Supreme Court examined whether an accused is entitled to such a copy immediately upon filing of the charge-sheet or only after the court takes cognizance and reaches the statutory stage contemplated under Sections 207 and 208 CrPC. The case arose from allegations of sexual exploitation involving a powerful accused, triggering suo motu intervention by the Supreme Court and the constitution of a Special Investigation Team. The victim’s statement was recorded under Section 164 CrPC, and the accused sought a certified copy at the investigation stage. The trial court rejected the request, emphasizing confidentiality and victim protection, but the High Court reversed this order, relying on a prior High Court precedent. The Supreme Court decisively rejected the High Court’s reasoning and clarified that mere filing of a charge-sheet does not confer any enforceable right upon the accused to demand copies of statements under Section 164 CrPC. The Court reinforced the mandatory confidentiality of victim statements in sexual offence cases, interpreting statutory procedure in light of victim dignity, fair investigation, and due process. The judgment harmonizes procedural safeguards with constitutional values, strengthens the protective framework for victims of sexual crimes, and reiterates the binding nature of Supreme Court directions over conflicting High Court rulings.

Keywords:
Section 164 CrPC, Sexual Exploitation, Victim Confidentiality, Cognizance, Fair Trial, Accused Rights

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The case emerged from allegations of grave sexual exploitation involving the appellant, a young woman referred to as Miss ‘A’, against Respondent No. 2. The matter attracted national attention after a video allegedly uploaded by the victim surfaced on social media, prompting apprehensions regarding her safety. The victim’s father lodged a complaint alleging abduction and sexual harassment, while a cross-complaint was simultaneously filed by associates of the accused, alleging extortion. The unusual nature of competing FIRs and the serious allegations led to suo motu cognizance by the Supreme Court of India, resulting in the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to ensure impartial investigation.

During the course of investigation, the victim’s statement was recorded under Section 164 CrPC before a Judicial Magistrate. Almost immediately, the accused sought a certified copy of this statement. The trial court rejected the request, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Karnataka v. Shivanna alias Tarkari Shivanna, emphasizing confidentiality and protection of the victim. The accused approached the High Court, which reversed the trial court’s order and directed that the copy be supplied, reasoning that denial was impermissible once the charge-sheet had been filed.

This triggered the present appeal. The Supreme Court was thus called upon to reconcile procedural rights of the accused with statutory stages under the CrPC, while also balancing victim protection in cases involving sexual offences. The judgment therefore occupies a critical position in procedural criminal jurisprudence, particularly in relation to disclosure of sensitive materials during investigation .

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The factual matrix commenced on 25 August 2019 when the father of the appellant lodged a complaint at Police Station Kotwali, Shahjahanpur, stating that he had seen a disturbing video uploaded by his daughter on Facebook. The video allegedly accused Respondent No. 2 and others of sexual exploitation of multiple women. The complainant expressed serious apprehension for his daughter’s safety, noting that she was untraceable at the time. Subsequently, FIR No. 445 of 2019 was registered under Sections 364 and 506 IPC.

Earlier, a separate FIR No. 442 of 2019 had already been registered on the complaint of an advocate associated with the accused’s ashram, alleging threats and extortion. These competing narratives created complexity, raising concerns about misuse of process. The viral video and letters addressed to the Supreme Court led to registration of Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 2 of 2019. The Supreme Court ensured the victim’s safety and directed constitution of an SIT.

Pursuant to these directions, the victim’s statement was recorded under Section 164 CrPC on 16 September 2019. The next day, the accused moved an application seeking a certified copy of this statement. The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application on 19 September 2019, reasoning that disclosure at the investigation stage would endanger the victim and compromise the investigation.

The accused was arrested on 20 September 2019, and bail was rejected. Charge-sheets were eventually filed on 05 November 2019, including charges under Sections 376C, 354D, 342, and 506 IPC. Relying on a 2012 High Court judgment, the Allahabad High Court allowed the accused’s application on 07 November 2019 and directed supply of the Section 164 statement. Before the victim could challenge this order, the copy was already furnished. The present appeal thus questioned the legality of the High Court’s approach .

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether an accused is entitled to a copy of a victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC immediately upon filing of the charge-sheet?
ii. Whether the High Court erred in disregarding binding Supreme Court directions on confidentiality of victim statements?
iii. Whether Sections 207 and 208 CrPC can be invoked prior to cognizance being taken by the Magistrate?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellant submitted that Section 164 CrPC statements form part of sensitive investigative material and disclosure before the statutory stage would jeopardize victim safety. It was argued that Shivanna mandated strict confidentiality until filing of the charge-sheet and further judicial orders. The appellant emphasized that mere filing of a charge-sheet does not equate to taking cognizance under Section 190 CrPC. Reliance was placed on procedural sequencing under the CrPC to assert that the accused’s right arises only after issuance of process and compliance with Sections 207 and 208 CrPC. The High Court’s reliance on a pre-Shivanna decision was contended to be legally unsustainable .

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondent contended that denial of the Section 164 statement violated principles of fair trial. It was submitted that once the charge-sheet was filed, the investigation stood concluded, and withholding documents prejudiced the defence. Reliance was placed on Raju Janki Yadav v. State of U.P. to argue that certified copies could not be denied to an accused willing to bear costs. The State also initially supported this position before the High Court, asserting that refusal by the trial court was erroneous .

H) JUDGMENT

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order. The Court undertook a detailed examination of the scheme of the CrPC, emphasizing that procedural rights accrue in stages. It reiterated that Section 173 CrPC governs filing of the police report, while Section 190 CrPC empowers the Magistrate to take cognizance. The Court clarified that only after cognizance is taken and process is issued does the accused acquire a statutory right to copies under Sections 207 and 208 CrPC.

The Court held that the High Court fundamentally misunderstood the directions in Shivanna. Those directions were not limited to police conduct but extended to preservation of confidentiality until judicially sanctioned disclosure. The Court stressed that sexual offence cases demand heightened confidentiality, and premature disclosure could imperil victims and witnesses. The trial court’s refusal was therefore correct. Even though the copy had already been furnished, the Supreme Court categorically declared that under no circumstances can Section 164 statements be supplied before cognizance.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio of the judgment lies in the authoritative interpretation that the right of an accused to obtain copies of documents, including a victim’s Section 164 CrPC statement, arises only after the Magistrate takes cognizance under Section 190 and reaches the stage under Sections 207 or 208 CrPC. Filing of a charge-sheet alone does not trigger this right. The Court harmonized statutory interpretation with victim-centric jurisprudence and reaffirmed that Supreme Court directions override conflicting High Court precedents. Confidentiality in sexual offence investigations was held to be an essential component of fair procedure .

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that judicial insensitivity to victim protection can undermine the criminal justice system. It noted that High Courts must exercise caution when dealing with procedural rights in sexual offence cases. The Court also remarked that prior High Court decisions must be read subject to later binding Supreme Court directions. These observations, though not forming the core ratio, reinforce a victim-centric approach to criminal procedure .

c) GUIDELINES

i. Statements under Section 164 CrPC must remain confidential until cognizance is taken.
ii. Accused persons cannot claim copies merely upon filing of charge-sheet.
iii. High Courts must adhere to binding Supreme Court directions in sexual offence matters.
iv. Victim safety and dignity must guide procedural interpretation.
v. Trial courts must resist premature disclosure that may compromise investigation. .

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment represents a decisive reaffirmation of procedural discipline under the CrPC. By rejecting the notion that filing of a charge-sheet automatically entitles the accused to sensitive materials, the Supreme Court preserved the integrity of staged criminal procedure. The ruling strengthens victim protection, particularly in sexual offence cases where power imbalances and intimidation risks are acute. It also sends a clear message to subordinate courts regarding adherence to binding precedent. The decision balances accused rights with societal interest and victim dignity, reinforcing that fair trial does not mean premature access to confidential evidence. The judgment thus contributes significantly to Indian criminal procedural jurisprudence by clarifying the contours of disclosure and confidentiality .

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

i. State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere Police v. Shivanna alias Tarkari Shivanna, [2014] 5 SCR 812
ii. Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, [1985] 3 SCR 942
iii. Raju Janki Yadav v. State of U.P. and Others, (2012) 6 All LJ 486

b) Important Statutes Referred

i. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
ii. Indian Penal Code, 1860