R.Manjula v. The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR R.Manjula ... Petitioner
Versus
State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing, Tiruvannamalai.
(Crime No.07 of 2024) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, praying to direct the respondent police to take immediate measures to preserve the CDR of the mobile numbers 9786449368, 9159695635, 8489189413, 8122415031, 9445000515, 9443442103, 9751619543, 8300735429, 8072161815, 9500762022, 9487528023, 9486986204, 6369693803, 9486329444 across the mobile networks for the period from April 2024 to December 2024.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Public Prosecutor Page No.1 of 8
ORDER
The petitioner/A1 in Crime No.7 of 2024 had filed this petition seeking for collection of CDR details of the following numbers and preserving the same for the period between April 2024 to December 2024: Page No.2 of 8
2.The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner was posted as Tahsildar, Arani from 06.04.2023 and prior to it, she had served 12 years of unblemished service in the Revenue Department. The case projected against the petitioner is that the petitioner was harassing, pressurizing the de-facto complainant and demanded a bribe amount of Rs.15,000/-, which was reduced to Rs.10,000/- and on the instructions of the petitioner, A2/night watchman in the office received a bribe amount from the decoy in presence of the accompanying witness and trap was laid on 14.06.2024. Even in the recovery mahazar, the night watchman/A2 version recorded is that at the instance of the petitioner bribe amount received. 3.
According to the petitioner, the de-facto complainant earlier made a complaint against the VAO of Kathukanallur, who is said to have demanded a bribe amount of Rs.15,000/-, received the same and again demanded additional bribe amount of Rs.10,000/-. In fact, the petitioner informed the de-facto complainant not to pay bribe amount and there is no necessary for paying any bribe amount. But one Gopinath, Head Constable serving in Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Tiruvannamalai for past 8 years had projected a false case against the officers, who are not at the monthly payment list to Page No.
him and further he ensures that trap is set against the officers, who are on the verge of promotion. At the instance of rivals, the petitioner made as scape goat. He further submitted that the Call Data Record (CDR) details of these numbers are required to prove her innocence. The trap was laid on 14.06.2024 and normally the service provider reports call data records for a certain period around 12 to 18 months and hence at the time of trial, in defence, the petitioner if to confront these call details with the witnesses to probabilise and prove her case, the call data may not be available. The defence might take some time and thereafter filing a petition to summon documents at the defence stage or during cross examination, the service provider would report, call details erased/destroyed and the petitioner will be handicapped due to non availability of CDR details and great prejudice will be caused to him.
4.In support of his contention, the learned counsel for petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Saroja vs. Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai in Crl.O.P.No.11318 of 2025 dated 30.04.2025 and in the case of T.Mathivanan vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Ranipet District in Crl.O.P.No.19302 of 2025 dated 08.07.2025.
Page No.4 of 8
5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is making wild allegations without giving any specific instance. The petitioner, if has got any proof of false implication, she can give the call details when and from whom received or spoken. Without any details, making such wild allegations is not proper. He further submitted that in this case investigation almost completed, sanction for prosecution is pending. Once sanction for prosecution is received, charge sheet will be filed before the concerned court and these documents are not relied upon documents. The petitioner's right only accrues at the stage of entering the defence and not at this stage.
6.Considering the submissions made on either side and on perusal of the material, it is seen that the contention of the petitioner seeking call data records (CDR) details of 9 persons may not be appropriate. The call details of the de-facto complainant/C.Srinivasan, the petitioner/R.Manjula and A2/S.Babu/Night Watchman can be collected. With regard to the petitioner's specific allegation against Gopinath, Head Constable, the Investigating Officer after collecting call details of the night watchman if finding that night watchman/A2 was implanted in this case to trap the petitioner and if there is any exchange of call during trap period, then the call details of Gopinath Page No.5 of 8
pertaining to Mobile No.9486329444 can be collected and produced. 7.As regards call detail records of (1) C.Srinivasan/de-facto complainant, Mobile Nos.9786449368, 9159695635 & 8489189413, (2) R.Manjula/petitioner, Mobile Nos.8122415031 & 9445000515 and (3) S.Babu/Night Watchman, Mobile No.9443442103, the same to be collected for a period from April, 2024 to December, 2024. The respondent police is directed to collect call detail records of Serial Nos.1 to 3 (cited above) from the service provider from April, 2024 to December, 2024 and submit the same before the trial Court.
8. Recording the same, the Criminal Original Petition is partly allowed.
22.10.2025 Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order rsi Page No.6 of 8
To 1.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing, Tiruvannamalai.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page No.7 of 8
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
rsi 22.10.2025 Page No.8 of 8