Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Cop For Unauthorisedly Accessing Woman's Call Detail Records, Cites Right To Privacy

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (May 29) refused to quash a criminal case registered against a police sub inspector Vidya M V, who is accused of illegally obtaining Call Detail Records (CDR) of a woman.

A vacation bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, “No police officer just by being a police officer can call for any CDR of any citizen of the country, without there being any investigation.”

The petitioner had approached the Court seeking to quash the case registered against her for the offences punishable under section 354(d) 409,506,509 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 66(D) and 66(E) of the Information Technology Act.

The case was registered on the directions of the Magistrate court, which had allowed the private complaint filed by one Bhavana S.

It was alleged that the petitioner along with other accused had called for the complainant's CDR without any authority and had given it to the co-accused against whom she had filed a complaint with another police station. It was further alleged that the said co-accused misused the details and was causing trouble to her.

Advocate Satynarayan Chalke appearing for the petitioner argued that the CDR called for by the petitioner in the course of discharge of her official duties and without a sanction order under Section 197 CrPC and Section 170 of Karnataka Police Act no criminal proceedings could have been initiated against the petitioner, when she was discharging her official duties.

The court enquired with the counsel on what basis the CDR was called and whether the petitioner was incharge of any particular investigation or particular crime against the respondent (complainant).

The Court was then informed that the petitioner was not carrying out any investigation but as per the request made by certain other police inspectors who were investigating certain other crimes, the CDR were called for.

The Court on going through the records said,

“The CDR records of any person is a personal, private details governed by the Right to Privacy as elucidated by the Honourable Supreme Court in Justice Puttaswamy's case. The authority to call for a CDR of any particular person as regard any particular phone number owned by that person is required to be exercised only by an investigating officer, if the investigating officer is of the opinion that the CDR details is required, in order to investigate any particular crime.”

Rejecting the submission of the petitioner that without proper sanction order from the authority, prosecution could not have been initiated, the court said “The requirement of sanction would arise only if the officer against whom the proceedings are initiated is discharging official duties, as required to be so discharged. Just because the petitioner is a police officer, the petitioner cannot call for CDR's of the respondent or anyone else concerned without there being an investigation.”

It added “The petitioner having called for the CDR of the respondent, I am of the clear and categorical opinion that such calling of the record cannot be said to be in discharge of official duties of the petitioner. Since there was no particular investigation or official duty being discharged by the petitioner at that point of time when such records have been called for.”

Following which it held “I am of the categorical opinion that there was no requirement of obtaining sanction and the decision relied on by the petitioner in 2025, SCConline SC 718, which related to an officer discharging his official functions would not be applicable to the present case. In that view of the matter no grounds being made out the petition stands dismissed.”

Before parting, the court orally observed,

“We can't give such powers to a police officer to call for call records otherwise it will become a police state."

Appearance: Advocate Satyanarayan Chalke for Petitioner

Advocate Shashidhar K N for Respondent.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 190

Case Title: Vidya M V AND Bhavana S

Case No: WP 14869/2025