BOMBAY HIGH COURT RULES RECORDING AT POLICE STATION NOT A CRIME
Category: Criminal Law
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」
The case involves brothers Subhash and Santosh Rambhau Athare who were charged under sections 120B and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which are criminal conspiracy and intimidation. It took place in July 22 of 2024, where these charges were lodged against Subhash Athare after he had an unfortunate altercation with the police officers, when he had gone to register an FIR against 3 accused who had allegedly attacked their mother when she was home alone as well as trespassed their property. As he was unsatisfied with the investigation and the charges put against the accused, he confronted the police officers and secretly recorded their conversation where the police threatened him to withdraw his complaint, which was later forwarded to the Director General of Police of Maharashtra.
BACKGROUND
The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court held that recording video inside a police station does not fall under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, which relates to spying. The decision came from the bench consisting of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and SG Chapalgaonkar who struck down charges under the Act filed against Mumbai police constable Santosh Athare. When the bench was dealing with the petitions filed by Subhash and Santosh Athare, two brothers who were in the quest to quash the FIR lodged against them on July 19, 2022 by the Pathardi Police for offenses under the Official Secrets Act. The FIR was lodged due to an incident of April 21, 2022, where three persons allegedly barged into the house of the Athare brothers and assaulted their old mother and even tried to outrage her modesty. On April 26, Subhash was displeased to find out that only a non-cognizable (NC) offence was booked by the officers of the Pathardi Police Station. And when he tried to find out as to why they did not register an FIR against the accused, he was allegedly abused by the police in filthy language. Later he was called to the police station on May 2, 2022 and was allegedly pressured to withdraw his complaint. Which led him to record his conversation with the police in his phone. Afterwards, he he gave his complaint directly to the Director General of Police of Maharashtra where he mentioned that he and his brother was threatened by the officers for filing the FIR. Instant FIR was later lodged by the police to which the brothers hold that it was done with an ulterior motive.
KEY ASPECTS
COURT’S DECISION
The Court held that Section 2(8)of the Official Secrets Act defined "prohibited places". It also held that police stations did not fall under the categories of places mentioned under Section 2(8)of the Official Secrets Act and therefore the accused two brothers, Subhash and Santosh Athare cannot be charged under this Act as it does not satisfy the ingredients under this Act.
SECTION 3 OF THE OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT
The Section deals with penalties for spying and applies to places and actions that are directly detrimental to the safety and interests of the state and thus it was held by the Court that this section will not be applicable in the present case.
CONCLUSION
The case plays a significant role in determining the rights of a citizen. The case which was heard by a division Bench in the Bombay High Court held that recording of conversation in the police station does not amount to charges under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, as police stations do not come under the places listed in the Act, neither does it amount to spying. The case was sent back to Judicial Magistrate First Class in Pathardi for further rulings in the case. Therefore, it emphasized on the freedom of the citizen’s right to record in police stations, thereby enabling a free and fair society.
OLQ is a Pan-India basis law firm connecting legal expertise nationwide.
WRITTEN BY: ADINA EVANGELINE G
