Shalini Dogra vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner had sought directions to procure and preserve CCTV footage, visitor register, and mobile tower location data relevant to a case under the CGST Act. The respondent, through its counsel, submitted that the CCTV footage and visitor register for the specified period had already been handed over to the Jharsa Police Chowki, and a letter dated 24.06.2022 confirming this action was produced. In light of this submission by the counsel for respondent No. 4, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the present petition had become infructuous. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition as having been rendered infructuous, without delving into the merits of the original request or the applicability of Section 482 Cr.P.C. for such directions in this specific context. No specific finding was recorded on the necessity of the mobile tower location data.

Facts

The petitioner, Shalini Dogra, filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking directions to respondents No. 1 to 3 (State of Haryana and others) to procure and preserve specific evidence. This evidence included CCTV footage from the office of respondent No. 4 (CGST, Gurugram Commissionerate) for the period 23.05.2022 to 27.05.2022, the visitor register for the same period, and the tower location of the petitioner's husband's mobile phone. This evidence was sought in connection with a case file titled 'CGST, Gurugram Vs. Suni Mahalawat and others', registered under Sections 132(1)(i) read with Section 132(1)(c)(e)(f) of the CGST Act, 2017. A co-ordinate bench had issued notice on 06.06.2022.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct the respondents to procure and preserve CCTV footage, visitor register, and mobile tower location data as requested by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in relation to a CGST Act case? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought directions for the preservation of crucial evidence, namely CCTV footage, visitor register, and mobile tower location data, which were relevant to the ongoing investigation under the CGST Act. The petitioner argued that without these directions, the evidence might be lost or tampered with, prejudicing their case. Revenue/State's contention: Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 (CGST, Gurugram) submitted that the requested CCTV footage and attested copies of the visitor register for the period 23.05.2022 to 27.05.2022 had already been handed over to the Jharsa Police Chowki. A letter dated 24.06.2022 confirming this transfer was produced and taken on record.