- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18444 WP No. 14869 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 14869 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. VIDYA M.V., AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, D/O. MR. M.V. VENKATESHA, POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, BYATARAYANAPURA POLICE STATION, (TILL 11.11.2024), KENGERI GATE SUB- DIVISION, BENGALURU CITY. PRESENTLY SECURITY TO THE FORMER/ EX. PRIME MINISTER. PERMANENT RESIDENT OF NO.11, LAKSHNI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, NEAR TOLL GATE, MAHADEVAPURA POST, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 415. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.950, FLAT NO.103, LAVEN PARK VIEW APARTMENT, 18TH 'A' MAIN ROAD, IDEAL HOMES TOWNSHIP, RAJA RAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 098. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATYANARAYAN CHALKE., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18444 WP No. 14869 of 2025 AND: SMT. BHAVANA S, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, D/O. SIDDALINGAPPA, R/AT NO.24, 4TH CROSS ROAD, 7TH MAIN ROAD, BHARATHINAGAR, BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 085. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHASHIDHAR K N., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CC NO. 43338/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED IV ADDL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU; SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV ADDL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU IN CC NO. 43338/2024 (PCR NO. 14198/2022 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED ANNEXURE – B AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: "a) call for the records in C.C.No.43338/2024 on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Bengaluru; b) set aside the order dated. 17/12/2024 passed by the Learned IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18444 WP No. 14869 of 2025 at Bengaluru in C.C.No.43338/2024 (PCR No.14198/2022), in so far as the Petitioner is concerned. [Annexure-B]; c) Quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.43338/2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 354(D), 409, 506, 509 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 66(D) and 66(E) of the Information Technology Act, pending on the file of IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Bengaluru, in so far as the Petitioner is concerned [Annexure – F], and; d) Pass any such other order that this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the instant case, in the interest of Justice." 2. Proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.43338/2024 for offences under Sections 354(D), 409, 506, 509 of IPC read with Sections 66-B and 66-E of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The allegation made against the petitioner is that petitioner called for Call Detail Reports (CDR) of the mobile number of the complainant without any authority. 3. The submission of Shri Satyanarayan Chalke, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the CDR was called for by the petitioner in the course of discharge - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18444 WP No. 14869 of 2025 of her official duties and as such, without sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C as it then stood, as also Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, no criminal proceedings could have been initiated against the petitioner when she was discharging her official duties. 4. On enquiry as to on what basis CDR was called and if the petitioner was in charge of any particular investigation of any particular crime against the respondent, learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner was not carrying on any investigation but she called for the CDR as per the request made by certain other police officers. 5. The CDR of any person are personal private details governed by the right to privacy as enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retd) vs. Union of India1. The 1 2019 (1) SCC 1 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18444 WP No. 14869 of 2025 authority to call for a CDR of any particular person as regards any particular phone number owned by that person is required to be exercised only by an Investigating Officer if the Investigating Officer is of the justifiable opinion that CDR is required in order to investigate any particular crime. No police officer just by being a police officer can call for any CDR of any citizen of the Country without there being any investigation. Such an action by a police officer would impinge and infringe upon the Right to Privacy. 6. The allegation against the Petitioner is that the Petitioner in collusion with accused No.1 – Madhu R.K., who is said to have promised marriage to the complainant had obtained the CDR of the complainant and made available the same to Madhu.R.K. It is also alleged that at the instance of Madhu.R.K., the Petitioner-accused No.2 and accused No.3 had carried out electronic surveillance of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18444 WP No. 14869 of 2025 complainant. The petitioner and accused No.3 had filed a requisition application on 10.11.2021 to the Nodal Officer and DCP, West Division, Bengaluru City as regards the CDR of the complainant. There is no reason for submitting any such requisition. Both accused No.2 and accused No.3 have acted at the instance of Madhu.R.K., to favour him and the actions taken by accused No.2 and accused No.3 are not during the course of their discharge of official duties. But it is only an illegal use of their official powers to satisfy the private needs of Madhu.R.K and such use by accused No.2 and 3 have been made for illegal gain. Apart therefrom, it is submitted that the privacy of a women is violated by obtaining CDR without her consent and making available to accused No.1, who has thereafter distributed to various persons, which is also an affront and modesty of the complainant – woman. A complaint which was sought to be filed with the jurisdictional police station - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18444 WP No. 14869 of 2025 was also not taken on record. The Petitioner allegedly shouting at the complainant as to how dare she gave a complaint against her and as such, the complaint was also not taken on record in violation of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lalitha Kumar vs. State of U.P2. 7. It is in that background that the complainant had filed a private complaint as indicated supra and the matter was referred to the Additional Commissioner of Police, Kengeri Gate Sub-Division for investigation after recording a sworn statement of the complainant. There is no denial on part of the Petitioner as regards the requisition made of the CDR of the complainant except to state that the same was done in the course of performance of her official duties and at the request of another police officer and on that basis, it is contended that prior sanction is required to be obtained in order to prosecute the 2 (2025) SCC Online ALL 1458 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18444 WP No. 14869 of 2025 Petitioner. The same not having been taken, the proceedings have to be quashed. 8. In my considered opinion, the requirement of sanction would arise only in the event of an officer against whom proceedings have been initiated was discharging his/her official duties as required to be discharged and which discharge is the cause of the complaint. 9. In the present case, there was no investigation being conducted by the Petitioner as regards any offence where the complainant is an accused or a person of interest. Thus, the question of discharge of any official duties would not arise. Merely because one another police officer were to request for a CDR of a private citizen, on that basis, the Petitioner could not requisition the CDR of the complainant. As indicated supra, the CDR of a person is a private record which is protected by Right to Privacy. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18444 WP No. 14869 of 2025 10. Just because the petitioner is a police officer, petitioner cannot call for CDR of the respondent or any one else without there being any investigation of such person. The petitioner having called for CDR of the complainant, I am of the clear and categorical opinion that such calling for records cannot be said to be in discharge of the official duties of the petitioner when there is no particular investigation or official duty being discharged by the petitioner at that point of time, when such records had been called for. 11. I am of the categorical opinion that there is no requirement for obtaining sanction and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the petitioner in G.C.Manjunath and Others Vs. Seetaram3, which related to the officer discharging official functions would not be applicable to the present case. 3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 718 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18444 WP No. 14869 of 2025 12. In that view of the matter, no ground being made out, the petition stands dismissed. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE YN List No.: 3 Sl No.: 60