Chattisgarh High Court
Prahlad Rathour vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 April, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:18450
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CrMP No.314 of 2025
Order Reserved on 27.01.2025
Order Delivered on 23.04.2025
Prahlad Rathour S/o Shri Bodhan Singh Rathour Aged About 40 Years Caste
Rathore, R/o Village Lalpur, Police Station Gaurela, Tahsil Pendra Road,
District Gaurela- Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.).
... Petitioner
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Khamhardih, District Raipur (C.G.).
... Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate
For State/Respondent : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma
CAV ORDER
1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 528 of
the BNSS, 2023, which stems from the FIR dated 28.02.2023, lodged at
Police Station Khamardih, Raipur, against the petitioner under Sections
294, 323, 506, 376, and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The
prosecutrix alleged that the petitioner, a Food Inspector, deceived her by
Digitally signed
by VASANT
VASANT KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.04.25
12:40:55 +0530
2concealing his marital status, threatened her with the release of obscene
videos, and subjected her to physical and sexual assault. Charge-sheet
was filed on 13.06.2023, bearing No. 154/2023, and the trial commenced
with the prosecutrix’s examination on 29.04.2024 and cross-examination
on 11.07.2024. Petitioner is constrained to approach this Court to
impugn and assail the action of Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur, in
respect to case bearing No. 30/2023 (State v/s Prahlad Rathour & Anr),
wherein the learned Special Judge has denied permission to defense to
open/examine the Facebook or Instagram account of the prosecutrix in
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as also, to play the audio
record concerning the prosecutrix and examine the prosecutrix thereof.
Therefore, the petitioner is invoking the benign jurisdiction of this Court,
as the denial of permission deprives the trial of the petitioner and the
opportunity to effectively challenge the prosecutrix’s allegations through
evidence.
2. The brief factual background of the prosecution case is that the
prosecutrix lodged an FIR against the present petitioner on 28.02.2023
under Sections 294, 323, 506, 376, and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860. The allegation levelled against the petitioner are that the
prosecutrix is a Zila Panchayat Member in Baloda Bazar District. The
petitioner, who is a Food Inspector, first met the prosecutrix at Baloda
Bazar Collector Office in connection with work related to a Society
3
matter. As per the allegations, the prosecutrix and the petitioner began
communicating over calls and grew closer over time. Approximately 18-
19 months later, the prosecutrix came into knowledge that the petitioner-
Prahlad Rathour already married person and had two children. Allegedly,
when the prosecutrix confronted the petitioner about concealing this fact,
an argument and quarrel ensued, leading to the severance of their
relationship. For the next 5-7 months, the petitioner did not communicate
with the prosecutrix. However, it is alleged that the petitioner continued
to attempt to contact the prosecutrix through various means. As alleged,
the petitioner later contacted the prosecutrix using his friend’s phone
number and threatened her, claiming he would make obscene videos of
the prosecutrix public. According to the prosecutrix, the petitioner forced
her to sit in his vehicle (Scorpio) and took her to a Lodge on Kachna
Road. The prosecutrix managed to delete 4-5 obscene videos of herself
from the petitioner’s phone. Following this, she requested to be dropped
at the bus stand. However, the petitioner refused, stating it was too late
for buses and suggested they stay at the lodge. This led to a heated
argument and a physical altercation. The prosecutrix alleged that the
petitioner forcibly took her to a lodge, where he blackmailed and
physically assaulted her. He is accused of tying her hands and legs,
coercing her, and restraining her until the next day. The petitioner then
promised to drop her at a location but instead drove elsewhere. While
4
traveling, he allegedly involved others, including Anita Sahu and Pramila
Sahu, who, along with the petitioner, physically assaulted the prosecutrix
and took her belongings. Later, she was allegedly abandoned at Baloda
Bazar during the night. Later, the prosecutrix lodged an FIR on
28.02.2023 at Police Station Khamardih, Raipur. The charge-sheet was
filed by the prosecution on 13.06.2023, bearing No. 154/2023.
3. After the filing of the charge-sheet on 13.06.2023, charges were framed
against the petitioner, and the trial commenced. As part of the trial
proceedings, the prosecutrix was summoned to Court for her
examination-in-chief on 29.04.2024, during which the prosecution filed
its case and the prosecutrix recorded her statement. Subsequently, the
prosecutrix was scheduled for cross-examination on 11.07.2024.
4. During the cross-examination of the prosecutrix on 11.07.2024, the
defence sought the permission to open the prosecutrix’s Facebook and
Instagram accounts in the presence essence of the Special Public
Prosecutor and the defense counsel. This request was made to verify the
authenticity of certain photographs presented by the defense, which the
prosecutrix had denied being associated with, alleging they were edited
and sourced from her social media profiles.
5. The defense also requested permission to play an audio recording
allegedly involving the prosecutrix. The intention was to confirm the
5
authenticity of the voice in the recording and to question the prosecutrix
regarding its contents to support the defense’s case.
6. The request of the defense was rejected on the premise that the
authenticity and chain of custody of the evidence presented were not
adequately established. Furthermore, the request to access the Facebook
and Instagram accounts of the victim was also rejected, as no prior
procedural steps had been taken to authenticate or obtain certified
records of the social media content in question. Additionally, regarding
the audio recording, the Court noted that the pen drive containing the
recording had not been submitted during the investigation and was not
part of the charge-sheet, rendering its origin and custody unclear. Hence,
the present petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that at the outset, the
petitioner has an inherent and constitutionally protected right to ensure
that the trial conducted against him does not violate the principles of
fairness and justice as enshrined under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the
Constitution of India. The evidence sought to be introduced is relevant as
per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act and directly pertains to the
Issues raised during the examination-in-chief of the prosecutrix. Its
Introduction is essential for effectively challenging her testimony and
assessing her credibility. He further contended that the permission sought
6
to access the prosecutrix’s Instagram and Facebook accounts, as well as
to introduce the audio recording, is made in good faith and not to cause
delay, vexation, or prejudice to the prosecution. He further contended
that the defence undertakes to provide a certificate under Section 65B of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to ensure the admissibility and
authenticity of the electronic evidence being sought to be introduced. It
is further contended that Section 351 of the BNSS, 2023 empowers the
court to summon, examine, recall, or re-examine any person or evidence
at any stage of the trial if it is essential for the just decision of the case.
The audio-video evidence sought to be introduced is directly relevant to
the facts in issue. Under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, the
court has the authority to order the production of any evidence or
document that it deems necessary to discover or obtain proof of relevant
facts. Under Section 94 of the BNSS, the court is empowered to summon
or order the production of any document or thing that it deems necessary
or desirable for the purpose of a fair and just trial. It is, therefore, prayed
that this Court may be pleased to:
(a) Call for the records of the case and the proceedings in
Case No. 30/2023 (State v/s Prahlad Rathour & Anr)
pending before the learned Special Judge (Atrocities),
Raipur, pertaining to the First Information Report dated
28.02.2023 registered at Police Station Khamardih, Raipur,
7under Sections 294, 323, 506, 376, and 376(2)(n) of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with the charge-sheet and
all other relevant documents for examining the legality,
propriety, and correctness of the impugned order/action.
(b) This Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the
dictum/mandate of Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur, in
respect to case bearing number 30/2023 (State v/s Prahlad
Rathour & Anr), wherein the learned Special Judge has
denied permission to defense to open/examine the
Facebook or Instagram account of the prosecutrix, as also,
to play the audio record concerning the prosecutrix and
examine the prosecutrix thereof.
(c) This Court may be pleased to direct the learned Special
Judge (Atrocities), Raipur, to permit the defence/petitioner
to: access the prosecutrix’s Facebook and Instagram
accounts in the presence of the Special Public Prosecutor
and the defence counsel for the purpose of verifying the
authenticity of the photographs presented during the trial.
(d) This Court may be pleased to direct the learned Special
Judge (Atrocities), Raipur, to permit the defence/petitioner
to: Call for the audio recordings allegedly involving the
8
prosecutrix and, after verifying their authenticity, allow the
petitioner to play the said recordings during her cross-
examination to confirm the authenticity of the voice and
enable effective cross-examination.
(e) Pass any further order in favor of the petitioner as the
Court may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of
the present matter.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the
submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and contended
that the learned trial Court has rightly finds that it does not seem
appropriate to access and view the Facebook or Instagram account of the
prosecutrix in the Court. If the Facebook or Instagram account of the
prosecutrix would examine in the Court, the right to privacy of the
prosecutrix would be violated and on this count also the petition deserves
to be dismissed at this stage.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and considered
their submissions made herein above and also went through the records
with utmost circumspection.
10. Article 21 of the Constitution of India held as under :-
9
“Article 21 of the Constitution of India states that
no person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to procedure prescribed by
law.”
11.Recently a landmark judgment has been passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy(Retd) Vs. Union of India
reported in 2019 (1) SCC 1 established that :-
“the right to privacy is an intrinsic part of the right to
life and personal liberty. This means that privacy is a
fundamental right, not just a procedural right, and is
protected by the Constitution.”
The said judgment has significant implications for the scope of
fundamental rights in India. It affirms the expansive interpretation of
Article 21 and emphasizes the importance of a holistic approach to
interpreting and safeguarding fundamental rights.
12. In the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Madhukar Narayan
Mardikar (1991), the Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed that everyone
has the right to privacy, regardless of their background.
13. The Supreme Court has opted to read Article 21 of the Constitution in
conjunction with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in order to
10
broaden its application. The Constitution of India does not expressly
support the right to privacy as a core libertarian ideal. In case of Kharak
Singh v. the State of U.P. (1962), when the surveillance of suspects was
at issue, the right to privacy came to light.
14. The Right to Privacy is a human right, enshrined in numerous
international covenants and institutions as reflected in Article 12 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 and Article 17 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966. In K.S
Puttaswamy (supra), the Court ruled that privacy is a fundamental
right, protected intrinsically under the right to life and personal liberty.
Privacy is a right enjoyed by every human being by virtue of their
existence. It can extend to other aspects such as bodily integrity, personal
autonomy, protection from state surveillance, dignity, confidentiality, etc.
15. The Oxford Dictionary of Law defines privacy as the “right to be left
alone. The right to a private life…” Taking a cue from this definition, we
can say that the right to privacy is the right to keep our personal
information private. Personal information can include electronic
communication, sexual orientation, professional activities and even
feelings or intellect.
16. The Right to Privacy is one of these rights since the right to life in
Article 21 of the Constitution is flexibly defined to cover all parts of a
11
person’s existence that make their life more meaningful. Respect for
privacy is regarded as a Fundamental Right of humans in many
international treaties. It is essential for maintaining human dignity and is
one of the fundamental components of a democracy. It upholds one’s
rights as well as those of other people. Privacy as a concept is not new.
The divisions in ancient Greece were called Polis and Oikos, or the
public or political world and the private or familial sphere, respectively.
The “Right to Privacy”, on the other hand, is a relatively contemporary
concept. The Right to Privacy is one of these rights since the right to life
in Article 21 of the Constitution is flexibly defined to cover all parts of a
person’s existence that make their life more meaningful. The concepts of
privacy and the Right to Privacy are difficult to grasp. Privacy often
relates to modern information and communication technologies and is
based on the principle of natural rights. The right to privacy refers to our
ability to protect the space around us, which includes all we own, such as
our bodies, homes, assets, ideas, feelings, secrets, identities, etc.
17.The Right to Freedom should be carefully examined by the Parliament
and the Supreme Court, and a means for balancing the conflicting rights
to privacy and freedom of expression should be developed. In the digital
age, data is a valuable resource that shouldn’t be unregulated. This
situation indicates that India’s time for a robust data protection regime
has come. Article 21 states that a person’s right to privacy is essential to
12
their right to personal freedom. Rights to privacy are not unqualified.
They are subject to reasonable restrictions for the defence of crimes, the
welfare of the weak, morality, or the defence of other human rights.
18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, Article 21 of the
Constitution, judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and other
related materials.
19. Reverting to the factual matrix attending the instant case, perusal of the
record would show that during cross-examination of the prosecutrix, the
learned defense counsel submitted that the prosecutrix was denying the
fact that she is living with the accused-Prahlad and his family members
in all the photographs filed by them in the Court and the prosecutrix has
stated that her photo has been edited in all the above photographs, it is
possible that her photo has been taken from her Facebook or Instagram
ID and edited. Therefore, permission was sought in the Court in the
presence of the Special Public Prosecutor and the defense counsel to
open and see her Facebook or Instagram ID. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the trial Court finds that it does not seem
appropriate to access and view the Facebook or Instagram account of the
prosecutrix in the Court, hence permission to access and view the
Facebook or Instagram account of the victim was not granted. In view of
13
the above, in the opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court has rightly
rejected the prayer to access and view the Facebook or Instagram
account of the prosecutrix in the trial Court. If permission is granted to
examine the Facebook or Instagram account of the prosecutrix as also to
play the audio record concerning the prosecutrix, then privacy of the
victim may be compromised. The objection taken by the prosecutrix is of
violation of her right to privacy while the objection taken by the
prosecution is that the accused has no right to seek permission to
examine the Facebook or Instagram account of the prosecutrix as also to
play the audio record concerning the prosecutrix.
20. From the above stated case laws, it is apparent that the above stated
contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be
examined by this Court. The adjudication of questions of facts and
appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of
the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of BNSS). In view of the material
on record, it cannot be held that the impugned proceedings in Case
No.30/2023 are manifestly attended with malafide and maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused
and with a view to spite them due to private and personal grudge.
14
21. Accordingly, the present CrMP lacks merit and thus, liable to be and is
hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
Vasant