Kerala High Court
Shihabudeen vs State Of Kerala on 18 July, 2025
Author: V.G.Arun
Bench: V.G.Arun
2025:KER:53867
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 6363 OF 2025
CRIME NO.170/2013 OF North Paravur Police Station, Ernakulam
ORDER DATED 28.09.2024 IN CC NO.1540 OF 2014 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, NORTH PARAVUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 AND 4:
1 SHIHABUDEEN
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O.ABDUL KAREEM, 'STHUTHI' HOUSE, MANNAM KARA, MANNAM
POST, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 683520
2 FAIZAL
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMADKUNJU, VELIPARAMBIL HOUSE, THANNIPADAM
KARA, PARAVUR POST.PARAVUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 683513
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.G.JEEVAN
SMT.HEERA MURALEEDHARAN K.
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
SRI.M.C. ASHI, SR.PP.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:53867
Crl.M.C.No.6363 of 2025
2
ORDER
Dated this the 18th day of July, 2025 Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 4 in C.C. No.1540 of 2024 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, North Paravur. The case originated from Crime No. 170 of 2013 registered at the North Paravoor Police Station against the petitioners and others for offences under Sections 143, 147, 452, 506 (1) and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damages to the Public Properties Act, 1984. Along with Annexure B final report, a compact disc containing video recording of the incident is also produced. After the charge was framed and the trial was scheduled, the petitioners preferred an 2025:KER:53867 Crl.M.C.No.6363 of 2025 3 application praying to issue them with a copy of the compact disc containing the video recording. The jurisdictional Magistrate having dismissed that application as per Annexure D, this Crl.M.C. is filed.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that, as the compact disc made a piece of evidence and produced along with the final report, the petitioners are entitled to get a copy as mandated by Section 207(v) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In support for the argument that compact disc is also a document falling under Section 207, reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in Tarun Tyagi v. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2017) 4 SCC 490] and P.Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep v. State of Kerala and Another [(2020) 9 SCC 161].
2025:KER:53867 Crl.M.C.No.6363 of 2025 4
3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Annexure B final report was filed way back in the year 2013. If the petitioners genuinely required a copy of the compact disc, they should have made a request in that regard long back. The fact that the petitioners waited till the trial was scheduled shows that their only intention is to protract the trial.
4. The short question is whether delay on the part of accused in seeking a copy of a document produced along with the final report can result in rejection of the prayer. The answer can only be in the negative, since Section 207 mandates the issuance of the copy of the police report and any other document or relevant extract forwarded to the Magistrate along with the final report to the accused. The legal position 2025:KER:53867 Crl.M.C.No.6363 of 2025 5 is no large res integra in view of the following finding in Tarun Tyagi (supra);
8. S.207 puts an obligation on the prosecution to furnish to the accused, free of cost, copies of the documents mentioned therein, without any delay. It includes, documents or the relevant extracts thereof which are forwarded by the police to the Magistrate with its report under S.173(5) of the Code. Such a compliance has to be made on the first date when the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate at the commencement of the trial inasmuch as S.238 of the Code warrants the Magistrate to satisfy himself that provisions of S.207 have been complied with. Proviso to S.207 states that if documents are voluminous, instead of furnishing the accused with the copy thereof, the Magistrate can allow the accused to inspect it either personally or through pleader in the Court.
5. Later, in P.Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep (supra), the Apex Court, after referring to the decision in Tarun Tyagi (supra), held that a memory card is a 2025:KER:53867 Crl.M.C.No.6363 of 2025 6 document, and also observed that copy of the document need not be furnished in cases involving issues such as privacy of the complainant/ witness or his/her identity. As there is no element of privacy involved in the petitioner's case, the right to be served with a copy cannot be denied.
The Crl.M.C is hence allowed and Annexure D order is quashed. The court below shall ensure that a cloned copy of the compact disc mentioned in the FIR is issued to the petitioners at the earliest.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE SSK/18/07 2025:KER:53867 Crl.M.C.No.6363 of 2025 7 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6363/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A COPY OF FIR IN CRIME 170/2013 DATED 25.1.2013 REGISTERED BY NORTH PARAVUR POLICE.
Annexure B COPY OF THE POLICE REPORT/CHARGE SHEET DATED 17.12.2013 FILED BEFORE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NORTH PARAVUR-I Annexure C TRUE PHOTO COPY OF APPLICATION CMP 2770/24 DATED 10.7.2024 Annexure D CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER IN CMP NO:2770/24 DATED 28.9.2024 IN C.C.1540/14 ON THE FILE OF JFCM-I, NORTH PARAVUR.