The Defacto Complainant’s Right to Obtain a Copy of Their Section 164 Cr.P.C Statement Post-Final Report

Introduction

This case, titled SNIGDHA KUMAR v. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, was decided by the Kerala High Court on January 7, 2025. The petitioner, Miss Snigdha Kumar, approached the Court under OP(CRL.) No. 799 of 2024, challenging an order of the lower court (Ext.P1) that refused her request for a copy of her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

The factual matrix began with an FIR (Crime No.646/2018) registered at Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, based on the petitioner’s First Information Statement alleging offenses under Sections 294(b) and 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Following the investigation, the crime was transferred to the Crime Branch Criminal Investigation Department (CBCID). Ultimately, the investigating officers filed a refer/final report (Ext.P3) concluding that the offenses alleged were not made out and recommended the case be struck off the record. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the petitioner sought a copy of her Section 164 statement to file a protest complaint. However, the lower court declined her request, citing a Supreme Court precedent that applies mainly to accused persons before completion of investigation, which the High Court found distinguishable.

The key issue in this case was whether a defacto complainant, after the investigation is complete, is entitled to obtain a copy of their own Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement when the police file a refer or final report. The Court’s decision in favor of the petitioner clarifies this area of law and establishes important guidance on the matter.

Summary of the Judgment

The Kerala High Court, per Justice C. Jayachandran, held that the petitioner (defacto complainant) is entitled to a certified copy of her own statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., since the investigation had concluded and the final report was placed on record. The Court noted that although in A v. State Of Uttar Pradesh (2020) the Supreme Court disallowed access to a Section 164 statement before the conclusion of investigation and filing of the final report, those facts do not govern a scenario where the defacto complainant seeks their own statement after submission of a final report.

The Court also observed that, under Rule 226 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, even strangers to a criminal proceeding may be granted copies of relevant documents upon showing sufficient cause. Since the petitioner required her Section 164 statement to file a protest complaint, she demonstrated a legitimate purpose and was thus entitled to the copy.

Consequently, the High Court set aside the order of the lower court (Ext.P1) and directed that a copy of the petitioner’s statement be issued to her.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

A v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2020) 10 SCC 505: The Supreme Court concluded that an accused person is not entitled to a copy of the Section 164 statement before the investigation concludes and the final report is filed. The petitioner’s case was found to be distinguishable from this precedent.
Vivek Nair v. Puravankara Projects Limited, 2017 (3) KLT 93: The Kerala High Court noted that under Rule 226 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, a person may obtain copies of documents filed in court if they show sufficient cause.
Athulya v. State Of Kerala, 2019 (5) KHC 920 & Saritha S. Nair v. Union of India, 2022 (5) KHC 527: Both decisions were cited by the prosecution to argue that no copies should be issued before the trial court takes cognizance. However, the Court found that these decisions must be read in context with the status of investigation and the rightful entitlement of complainants to access their own 164 statements.

2. Legal Reasoning

The High Court’s reasoning is grounded in the principle that once a final report is filed, a complainant who wishes to contest the findings of the police must be given fair opportunity to do so. Denying access to their own statement would effectively hamper their ability to pursue a protest complaint.

By clarifying that such a request arises after the submission of the final report, the High Court distinguished the situation from precedential cases where an accused sought a statement prior to the completion of investigation. The High Court found that Section 207/208 Cr.P.C. rights of accused persons—once the court takes cognizance—do not limit or extinguish the defacto complainant’s right to obtain their own statement. Moreover, Rule 226 of the Criminal Rules of Practice broadens entitlement to court documents and should apply even more strongly to the person who actually gave the statement in question.

3. Potential Impact

This decision has significant implications for criminal procedure in Kerala and may guide courts in similar jurisdictions. First, it reinforces that a defacto complainant has an active procedural role when the police conclude insufficient evidence exists to charge the accused. By feeling empowered to contest the investigating agency’s decision, complainants can ensure thorough scrutiny of refer reports.

Second, the ruling clarifies that entitlement to court documents, especially one’s own statement, should not be needlessly restricted when due process calls for transparency. This stance could influence future courts in other states to adopt a more complainant-friendly approach in similar situations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 164 Cr.P.C: This provision allows a Judicial Magistrate to record statements or confessions during the course of investigation. These statements are meant to secure reliable testimonies at an early stage to prevent witnesses or victims from being influenced or retracting.

Final/Refer Report: After completing the investigation, the police may submit a “refer report” or “closure report” if, in their assessment, sufficient evidence is lacking to proceed against the accused. This is commonly known as the “FAD” (Further Action Dropped) reference in some states.

Protest Complaint: If the investigating agency files a report stating that no grounds exist for proceeding, the defacto complainant can file a protest complaint to challenge that conclusion and request the court to take cognizance independently.

Rule 226 of the Criminal Rules of Practice: This rule provides that any individual (even a “stranger” to the proceedings) may obtain certified copies of documents on showing sufficient cause. This broadens the scope of access to judicial records, particularly when it supports a legitimate purpose.

Conclusion

In SNIGDHA KUMAR v. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, the Kerala High Court has definitively ruled that a defacto complainant whose statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is entitled to receive a copy of that statement once the final report has been filed. This clarifies that the principle restricting access to Section 164 statements prior to the completion of investigation does not apply to scenarios in which the complainant needs their own statement after the police have determined to drop further action.

The judgment further underscores judicial recognition of the defacto complainant’s participatory rights in the criminal process, ensuring that complainants have the necessary resources to challenge the police’s conclusions if they believe the evidence was improperly weighed or overlooked. Taken as a whole, this decision strengthens procedural fairness and transparency in the criminal justice system.

Overall, the case serves as a significant reminder that procedural rules must be balanced with fairness to both the accused and the complainant. It plants a vital precedent that can guide other courts on providing complainants access to key documents in situations where a final report is in dispute—thereby promoting a more equitable administration of justice.