The Bombay High Court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) registered against a man on the ground that during certain proceedings being undertaken in the Police Station, he secretly video-recorded the same on his mobile.

The applicant (original accused) has approached the High Court seeking quashing of FIR and consequent case pending before the Competent Court at Wardha, in pursuance of filing of charge sheet in the matter.

The applicant in the case as per FIR dated 08/03/2018, has been accused of offence punishable under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. Pursuant to investigation, charge sheet was filed on 18/11/2019.

D.R. Bhoyar, counsel for the applicant,  submitted that even if the contents of the FIR and the material placed before the Court below along with charge sheet are to be perused and accepted as it is, there are no ingredients of offence punishable under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act made out in the present case. On this basis, it is submitted that the present application deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice.

S.M. Ghodeswar, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the respondent,  submitted that the High Court may peruse the material placed on record to arrive at a conclusion as to whether offence under the aforesaid provision is made out or not. Judgment of the High  Court in the case of Satvik Vinod Bangre and others vs The State of Maharashtra and another (order dated 23/03/2021) passed in Criminal Application (APL) No 74 of 2021 and other is brought to the notice of the High Court, to assist the Court for deciding the application.

Also Read: Bombay High Court refuses to quash FIR against physically-challenged person for outraging modesty of woman

On perusal of the material on record, the Nagpur Bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Valmiki Menezes noted that the complainant in the present case is a Police Officer, who has alleged that during certain proceedings being undertaken in the Police Station, the applicant secretly video recorded the proceedings on his mobile, thereby committing offence punishable under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. 

From the material placed on record, the Bench further noted that there was a dispute between the applicant and his wife on one hand and owner of adjacent agricultural field on the other, leading to a situation where a non-cognizable report was registered against the owner of the adjacent agricultural field, at the behest of the applicant.

The Police Officer informed the applicant and his wife that on the basis of a cross complaint being placed before the Police by the owner of the adjacent agricultural field, there was every likelihood of registration of offence against the applicant and his wife.

In this backdrop, the rival parties were present in the Police Station and it is alleged that attempts were being made to settle the inter se dispute between the parties. It is at this stage that, according to the complainant-Police Officer, the applicant made the aforesaid video recording, thereby committing the said offence, the Bench further noted.

Also Read: Allahabad High Court initiates contempt proceedings against lawyer for disrupting court hearing

The contents of the FIR state the  allegations against the applicant. The statements of alleged witnesses recorded during the course of investigation and made part of the charge sheet also limit the allegation only to the aforesaid act on the part of the applicant in making the video recording whilst the discussions were going on in the Police Station.   

The High Court has perused Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, which provides penalties for spying. It specifically states that a person would face penalty for spying if he commits an act as specified in sub-section (1) thereof.

The relevant portion of the said provision is reproduced as follows:  “3. Penalties for spying.– 
(1) If any person for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State– 
(a) approaches, inspects, passes over or is in the vicinity of, or enters, any prohibited place; or   
(b) makes any sketch, plan, model, or note which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be, directly or indirectly, useful to an enemy; or 

(c) obtains, collects, records or publishes or communicates to any other person any secret official code or password, or any sketch, plan, model, article or note or other document or information which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be, directly or indirectly, useful to an enemy or which relates to a matter the disclosure of which is likely to affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State or friendly relations with foreign States, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend, where the offence is committed in relation to any work of defence, arsenal, naval, military or air force establishment or station, mine, minefield, factory, dockyard, camp, ship or aircraft or otherwise in relation to the naval, military or air force affairs of Government or in relation to any secret official code, to fourteen years and in other cases to three years.”

Also Read: UP government cannot impose entertainment tax on water parks over rented swimming costumes: Allahabad High Court

In the context of the above quoted provision, the Bench observed that the definition of ‘prohibited place’ as defined in section 2(8) of the Official Secrets Act is relevant. It is an exhaustive definition, which does not specifically include a Police Station as one of the places or establishments, which could be included in the definition ‘prohibited place’. 

In the judgment in the case of Satvik Vinod Bangre and others v. The State of Maharashtra and another, in a similar situation, when video recording was made on the mobile phone, in the context of the offences punishable under sections 353 and 186 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the High Court found that there was no material to invoke sections 3 and 4 of the Official Secrets Act.

The High Court is of the opinion that the allegations in the said case were far more serious than those made in the present case against the applicant.

Therefore the Court disposed of the Application and quashed and set aside the F.I.R. for the offences punishable under Section – 3 of Official Secrets Act, 1923.

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday rejected the petition filed by senior IPS officer Rashmi Shukla challenging the FIR lodged by Mumbai Police in March this year. The police had booked unidentified persons for allegedly tapping phones and leaking confidential documents on the State Intelligence Department complaint since such tapping was in violation of the Official Secrets Act 1923.

A division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Sarang Kotwal directed the Maharashtra government to give Shukla a seven-day notice in case of any coercive steps are to be taken against her.

Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for Shukla, argued that by pinning the blame on Shukla, the state government was attempting to protect the present Chief Secretary of Maharashtra.

Jethmalani argued that Shukla had performed her duty as per the mandate of the law and the action by the Maharashtra government was an attempt to keep a gun against her head.

To this, the Mumbai Police responded that Shukla was not even named as an accused in the FIR in the alleged leak of confidential information about police postings in the state.

Also Read: Bombay HC notice on PIL alleging Goa not following SC directions to probe violations of mineral concession rules

Maharashtra government counsel Senior Advocate Darius Khambata said even if Shukla had not been named in the FIR, there was substantial material against her and the probe against her should proceed. Shukla had requisitioned three pen drives which are vital in the probe and need to be thoroughly investigated.

The state government said it has been writing to the Union Home Ministry to hand over the pen drive in its possession to ascertain whether it is the same pen drive sought by the state to verify the leakage. The state counsel said the state believes the pen drive was given to the Home Ministry by Leader of the Opposition in the Assembly, Devendra Fadnavis.

Shukla stated in her plea that she had exposed an alleged nexus between ministers and politicians and other gross corruption involved in assigning postings to police officers. The FIR was registered at the BKC Cyber police station in Mumbai in March this year against unidentified persons.

Also Read:

• CJI Ramana says media has given up on investigative journalism
• Delhi autos: Supreme Court turns down Bajaj Auto plea against permits only for e-autos
• Sikkim High Court disposes of suo motu PIL on prison conditions in Sikkim
• Allahabad High Court says land once acquired by govt cannot be reclaimed
• Veg, non-veg markings on food items: Delhi HC says selling vegetarian items with non-veg ingredients violates rights of vegetarians