Read Time: 04 minutes
The High court quashed the FIR against the applicant registered under the Official Secrets Act for video recording inside the police station. The court noted that the definition of prohibited areas under the Official Secret Act is exhaustive and does not include a police station
The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Valmiki SA Menezes has held that the definition of prohibited areas under the Official Secrets Act does not include a police station.
The case pertains to a case registered against a person who video-recorded inside a police station through his mobile phone. After the Police Officer found out that a video is being secretly recorded, an FIR was registered against the applicant under section 3 of the Official Secrets Act.
The said video recording was made during a proceeding at the police station wherein attempts were made to settle the dispute between two parties in a cross-complaint that was going to be registered. The cross FIR was with regard to agricultural land adjacent to the premise of the applicant and his wife.
The High Court referred to section 2(8) of the Official Secrets Act and concluded that the said definition 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’. The High Court noted that none of the offenses were made out against the applicant with respect to Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act.
The High Court also referred to the case of Satvik Vinod Bangre and others v. The State of Maharashtra and another wherein video recording was made on the mobile phone and a case was registered under sections 353 and 186 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of the Official Secrets Act. The court had held that there was no material produced to invoke Sections 3 and 4 of the Official Secrets Act. The High Court also noted that the allegations in the referred case were far more serious than those made in the present case against the applicant.
The High Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPc and quashed the FIR lodged against the applicant for video recording inside the police station through his mobile phone.
Case Title: Ravindra Shitalrao Upadyay vs State of Maharashtra
Please Login or Register
