In a recent decision, the Karnataka High Court refused to quash a First Information Report (FIR) filed against a police sub-inspector, Vidya M V, who was accused of unlawfully accessing the Call Detail Records (CDR) of a woman, thereby violating her right to privacy. The order was passed by a vacation bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj on May 29, 2025.
The petitioner had sought to quash the FIR, which was registered under sections 354(d), 409, 506, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 66(D) and 66(E) of the Information Technology Act. The complaint was initiated based on directions from the Magistrate Court, following a private complaint filed by Bhavana S.
Read Also:-Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against Youth for Reselling IPL Tickets
It was alleged that the petitioner, along with others, accessed the complainant's CDR without proper authorization and handed it over to a co-accused, against whom the complainant had earlier filed a case at a different police station. The complainant claimed that the co-accused had misused the CDR and continued to harass her.
"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 court observed, stressing the limits of police powers when it comes to private data.
During the hearing, Advocate Satyanarayan Chalke, representing the petitioner, argued that the CDR was obtained as part of her official duties. He contended that without a sanction order under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act, the initiation of criminal proceedings was not lawful.
The court, however, sought clarification on whether the petitioner was engaged in any investigation involving the complainant. It was informed that the petitioner was not involved in any such investigation, and the CDR had been collected at the request of other police officers investigating unrelated cases.
Read Also:-Karnataka High Court Orders Police to Register Complaint in ₹1.03 Crore ISRO Job Scam Case
The CDR records of any person is a personal, private detail 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... 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 argument related to the need for a sanction order, the court further clarified:
The requirement of sanction would arise only if the officer against whom the proceedings are initiated is discharging official duties... Just because the petitioner is a police officer, the petitioner cannot call for CDRs... without there being an investigation.
The court held that there was no official duty being performed by the petitioner at the time of obtaining the CDR. Therefore, the act could not be considered as part of her official responsibilities.
"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... 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."
In conclusion, the court ruled:
I am of the categorical opinion that there was no requirement of obtaining sanction and the decision relied on by the petitioner... would not be applicable to the present case. In that view of the matter no grounds being made out the petition stands dismissed.
Appearance: Advocate Satyanarayan Chalke for Petitioner
Advocate Shashidhar K N for Respondent.
Case Title: Vidya M V AND Bhavana S
Case No: WP 14869/2025
