{"id":381737,"date":"2026-04-21T10:00:05","date_gmt":"2026-04-21T04:30:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=381737"},"modified":"2026-04-21T09:42:25","modified_gmt":"2026-04-21T04:12:25","slug":"rajasthan-high-court-illegal-telephone-tapping-and-unauthorised-search-seizure","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/rajasthan-high-court-illegal-telephone-tapping-and-unauthorised-search-seizure\/","title":{"rendered":"Rajasthan High Court Quashes FIR Based on Illegal Telephone Tapping and Search Conducted Before Registration of Case"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Rajasthan High Court:<\/span> In a petition filed under Section 482<\/a>, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> (CrPC) for quashing of FIR and charge-sheet, filed by Anti-Corruption Bureau Jaipur, against petitioner, for commission of offenses under Sections 7<\/a>, 7-A<\/a> and 8<\/a>, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988<\/a> and Sections 201<\/a> and 120-B<\/a>, Penal Code<\/a> (IPC), a Single Judge Bench of Chandra Prakash Shrimali*, J., quashed the FIR and charge-sheet as it was filed on the basis of illegal telephone tapping and unauthorised search, which was conducted before registering the FIR. The arrest, also made before registration of FIR, was also found to be illegal and unconstitutional. Thus, the Court held that the FIR cannot be considered to be in accordance with law and hence, needs to be quashed.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

The petition was filed under Section 482<\/a> CrPC<\/a>, to quash the FIR filed against the petitioner under Sections 7<\/a>, 7-A<\/a> and 8<\/a>, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988<\/a> and Sections 201<\/a> and 120-B<\/a> IPC<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The petitioner was Financial Advisor in Jaipur Municipal Corporation who, along with other employees, was suspected of taking a percentage of the bill amount as commission in the form of bribe from contractors. So, the Anti-Corruption Bureau intercepted the mobile phones of petitioner and other employees and kept him under surveillance by clicking photographs at various locations. The order for recording the telephone conversations was passed by the Special Secretary (Home), who is subordinate to the Secretary (Home), Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. The permission was sought on the grounds of public safety.<\/p>\n

On such interception, it was found that the petitioner was carrying the bribe money to his house, so the police personnel from Anti-Corruption Department entered the petitioner’s house and conducted a search, where no amount was recovered, to which it was said that the amount had been destroyed or misappropriated by the petitioner. The said search was conducted without any search warrant, before filing the FIR. Lists containing details of pending bills of civil contractors for construction works and names and figures were seized without an order from competent authority.<\/p>\n

The Anti-Corruption Bureau arrested the petitioner on the ground of offenses under Section 7<\/a>, Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018<\/a> and Sections 201<\/a> and 120-B<\/a> IPC<\/a> even before the FIR was registered, i.e. on 7 January 2022, whereas the FIR was filed on 8 January 2022.<\/p>\n

Contentions<\/h3>\n

The petitioner contended that the Special Secretary (Home) was neither competent nor legally authorised to pass the order for recording the telephone conversations. The order did not mention any details as to what public safety concerns existed and on the basis of which criminal act the order was passed. Multiple orders extending the permission for telephone tapping were void ab initio and liable to be dismissed under Section 5<\/a>, Telegraph Act, 1885<\/a> read with Rule 419, Telegraph Rules, 1951 read with Section 69<\/a>, Information Technology Act, 2000<\/a>. Moreover, the act of telephone tapping amounts to offence under Section 25<\/a>, Telegraph Act, 1885<\/a> and Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009<\/a>. Telephone tapping and surveillance without the competent authority’s permission amounts to violation of right to privacy under Article 21<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> and is punishable under Section 66-E<\/a>, Information Technology Act, 2000<\/a>. The witnesses during the search were the officers over whom the Bureau had supervisory and influential control, so they cannot be considered independent witnesses. As per the petitioner, such search and seizure were illegal under Section 165<\/a> read with Sections 100<\/a> and 102<\/a> CrPC<\/a>. Provisions of notice before arrest under Section 41-A<\/a> CrPC<\/a> and grounds of arrest under Section 50(1)<\/a> CrPC<\/a> were also violated.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, the respondents contended that the telephone tapping, search and seizure conducted and arrest and detention of the petitioner were as per law and no legal or fundamental rights were violated.<\/p>\n

Issues<\/h3>\n
    \n
  1. \n

    Whether conducting search of the house of the petitioner and seizure proceedings, without a search warrant, in the absence of any evidence against him, arresting him, and registering the first information report after his arrest, amounts to violation of the provisions contained in Section 165<\/a> read with Section 100<\/a> CrPC<\/a> and whether the arrest and detention of the petitioner is illegal, unconstitutional and void ab initio under Sections 41<\/a>, 41-A<\/a> and 50<\/a> CrPC<\/a> read with Articles 21<\/a> and 22<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a>?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    Whether the tapping of the telephone of the petitioner, taking his photographs and videos was in accordance with law under Section 5<\/a>, Telegraph Act, 1885<\/a> read with Rule 419, Telegraph Rules, 1951 read with Section 69<\/a>, Information Technology Act, 2000<\/a>? And whether it amounts to violation of the right to freedom and privacy guaranteed under Articles 19<\/a> and 21<\/a> of the Constitution of India<\/a>?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  3. \n

    Whether the FIR registered against the petitioner, the charge-sheet filed on its basis and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are liable to be quashed under Section 482<\/a> CrPC<\/a>?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Analysis<\/h3>\n

    With respect to Issue 1<\/span>, it was the finding of the Court that the search of petitioner’s house was conducted without a search warrant from the competent authority and without any concrete evidence confirming the presence of bribe money. No bribe amount was recovered, however, the petitioner was arrested and produced before magistrate for obtaining police custody remand even before registering the FIR. No notice was given to the petitioner before arrest. The arrest memo showed that he was not informed of the grounds and reasons on which he was being arrested, nor was he informed of his right to consult a lawyer of his choice for his defence in the case. No evidence was collected regarding the misappropriation or destruction of the bribe amount. It was also not clear whether the seizure proceedings conducted in this case were forwarded to the Magistrate having competent jurisdiction or not.<\/p>\n

    The Court observed that the police personnel present during search cannot be considered independent witnesses for the purpose of search as they were not independent local persons from the vicinity of the residence of the petitioner, as required under Section 100(4)<\/a> CrPC<\/a>. Moreover, the lists and documents seized did not indicate commission of any offence. The case was built merely on the basis of the intercepted telephone conversations, which did not prima facie indicate the alleged offences.<\/p>\n

    In the light of such findings, the Court held that the search and seizure conducted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau was in violation of the provisions contained in Sections 100<\/a>, 102<\/a> and 103<\/a> CrPC<\/a>. On the question of notice and grounds of arrest, the provisions of Sections 41-A<\/a> and 50(1)<\/a> CrPC<\/a> were violated. Therefore, the search and seizure proceedings and the arrest and detention of the petitioner, which also violated the rights of petitioner under Article 21<\/a> and 22<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>, were held to be illegal and unconstitutional.<\/p>\n

    With respect to Issue 2<\/span>, Court analyzed Section 5<\/a>, Telegraph Act, 1885<\/a>, Section , 69<\/a>, Information Technology Act, 2000<\/a> and Rule 419-A, Telegraph Rules, 1951 along with several judgments on same legal position.<\/p>\n

    The Court found that the bureau conducted surveillance and took photographs and videos of the petitioner without the permission of the competent authority. The phone tapping was done, again without the permission of competent authority as the Secretary (Home), Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur did not authorise the Special Secretary (Home), Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur to grant such permission and it violated the provisions of Section 5(2)<\/a>, Telegraph Act, 1885<\/a>. Court observed that capturing, publishing or transmitting any private image of a person without his consent or without permission of the competent authority, amounts to violation of Section 66-E<\/a>, Information Technology Act, 2000<\/a>. Moreover, the orders granting permission of telephone tapping were not sent to the review committee within 7 days as required under Rule 419-A, Telegraph Rules.<\/p>\n

    Therefore, the Court held that the action of taking petitioner’s photographs and videos by the Bureau and telephone tapping was illegal and contrary to Section 5<\/a>, Telegraph Act, 1885<\/a> read with Rule 419, Telegraph Rules, 1951 read with Section 69<\/a>, Information Technology Act, 2000<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    The Court emphasised that telephone conversation is a matter of privacy of an individual, and if such telephone conversation is intercepted contrary to the procedure established by law, without mentioning public safety or other specified grounds, it would amount to violation of the fundamental right to personal liberty and right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21<\/a> and 22<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    With respect to Issue 3<\/span>, the Court held that since the search conducted at the house of the petitioner, the seizure of the documents and the arrest and detention of the petitioner was held to be illegal and unconstitutional, therefore, the FIR registered against the petitioner and chargesheet filed by the bureau cannot be held to be in accordance with law. Thus, the same deserved to be quashed.<\/p>\n

    Decision<\/h3>\n

    The Court allowed the petition filed under Section 482<\/a> CrPC<\/a> and quashed the FIR No. 05\/2022 registered against the petitioner and Charge-sheet No. 64 \/2022 filed on that basis, and all other proceedings arising out of the same to the extent of petitioner.<\/p>\n

    [Achleshwer Meena<\/span> v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 37291 of 2024<\/span>, 2O26:RJ-JP:98,661, decided on 17-3-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

    *Judgment authored by: Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

    Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

    For Petitioners:<\/span> Sudhir Gupta, Parth Gupta<\/p>\n

    For Respondents:<\/span> Manvendra Singh PP, Devi Singh PP<\/p>\n

    Buy Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988   HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

    \"prevention<\/a><\/p>\n

    Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

    \"Code<\/a><\/p>\n

    Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

    \"penal<\/a><\/p>\n

    Buy Constitution of India  HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

    \"Constitution<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    “The arrest made before the registration of FIR, on the basis of illegal telephone tapping and unauthorized search and seizure, held to be illegal and unconstitutional.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":381738,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[13681,47697,2680,102720,32104,67301,102726,2575,23734,9871,102723,38648,102725,43347,48246,102722,74831,102724,42622,99876,102721,45608],"class_list":["post-381737","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-article-21","tag-article-22","tag-bribe","tag-chandra-prakash-shrimali","tag-information-technology-act","tag-j","tag-mobile-interception","tag-Rajasthan_High_Court","tag-right-to-liberty","tag-right-to-privacy","tag-rule-419a-indian-telegraph-rules-1951","tag-search-warrant","tag-section-100-criminal-procedure-code","tag-section-41-crpc","tag-section-41a-crpc","tag-section-5-indian-telegraph-act-1885","tag-section-50-crpc","tag-section-66e-information-technology-act","tag-section-69","tag-section-7-prevention-of-corruption-amendment-act-2018","tag-section-7a-prevention-of-corruption-amendment-act-2018","tag-telephone-tapping"],"yoast_head":"\nRajasthan HC on illegal telephone tapping and unauthorised search|SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Rajasthan High Court quashed the FIR registered on the basis of illegal telephone tapping and unauthorised search and seizure without warrant\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/rajasthan-high-court-illegal-telephone-tapping-and-unauthorised-search-seizure\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajasthan High Court Quashes FIR Based on Illegal Telephone Tapping and Search Conducted Before Registration of Case\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Rajasthan High Court quashed the FIR registered on the basis of illegal telephone tapping and unauthorised search and seizure without warrant\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/rajasthan-high-court-illegal-telephone-tapping-and-unauthorised-search-seizure\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-04-21T04:30:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/illegal-telephone-tapping-and-unauthorised-search.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Rajasthan High Court Quashes FIR Based on Illegal Telephone Tapping and Search Conducted Before Registration of Case\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/rajasthan-high-court-illegal-telephone-tapping-and-unauthorised-search-seizure\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/rajasthan-high-court-illegal-telephone-tapping-and-unauthorised-search-seizure\/\",\"name\":\"Rajasthan HC on illegal telephone tapping and unauthorised search|SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/rajasthan-high-court-illegal-telephone-tapping-and-unauthorised-search-seizure\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/rajasthan-high-court-illegal-telephone-tapping-and-unauthorised-search-seizure\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/illegal-telephone-tapping-and-unauthorised-search.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-21T04:30:05+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Rajasthan High Court quashed the FIR registered on the basis of illegal telephone tapping and unauthorised search and seizure without warrant\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/rajasthan-high-court-illegal-telephone-tapping-and-unauthorised-search-seizure\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/rajasthan-high-court-illegal-telephone-tapping-and-unauthorised-search-seizure\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/rajasthan-high-court-illegal-telephone-tapping-and-unauthorised-search-seizure\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/illegal-telephone-tapping-and-unauthorised-search.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/illegal-telephone-tapping-and-unauthorised-search.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"illegal telephone tapping and unauthorised search\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/rajasthan-high-court-illegal-telephone-tapping-and-unauthorised-search-seizure\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajasthan High Court Quashes FIR Based on Illegal Telephone Tapping and Search Conducted Before Registration of Case\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rajasthan HC on illegal telephone tapping and unauthorised search|SCC Times","description":"Rajasthan High Court quashed the FIR registered on the basis of illegal telephone tapping and unauthorised search and seizure without warrant","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/rajasthan-high-court-illegal-telephone-tapping-and-unauthorised-search-seizure\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajasthan High Court Quashes FIR Based on Illegal Telephone Tapping and Search Conducted Before Registration of Case","og_description":"Rajasthan High Court quashed the FIR registered on the basis of illegal telephone tapping and unauthorised search and seizure without warrant","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/rajasthan-high-court-illegal-telephone-tapping-and-unauthorised-search-seizure\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-04-21T04:30:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/illegal-telephone-tapping-and-unauthorised-search.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Rajasthan High Court Quashes FIR Based on Illegal Telephone Tapping and Search Conducted Before Registration of Case","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/rajasthan-high-court-illegal-telephone-tapping-and-unauthorised-search-seizure\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/rajasthan-high-court-illegal-telephone-tapping-and-unauthorised-search-seizure\/","name":"Rajasthan HC on illegal telephone tapping and unauthorised search|SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/rajasthan-high-court-illegal-telephone-tapping-and-unauthorised-search-seizure\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/rajasthan-high-court-illegal-telephone-tapping-and-unauthorised-search-seizure\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/illegal-telephone-tapping-and-unauthorised-search.webp","datePublished":"2026-04-21T04:30:05+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Rajasthan High Court quashed the FIR registered on the basis of illegal telephone tapping and unauthorised search and seizure without warrant","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/rajasthan-high-court-illegal-telephone-tapping-and-unauthorised-search-seizure\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/rajasthan-high-court-illegal-telephone-tapping-and-unauthorised-search-seizure\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/rajasthan-high-court-illegal-telephone-tapping-and-unauthorised-search-seizure\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/illegal-telephone-tapping-and-unauthorised-search.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/illegal-telephone-tapping-and-unauthorised-search.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"illegal telephone tapping and unauthorised search"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/rajasthan-high-court-illegal-telephone-tapping-and-unauthorised-search-seizure\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajasthan High Court Quashes FIR Based on Illegal Telephone Tapping and Search Conducted Before Registration of Case"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/illegal-telephone-tapping-and-unauthorised-search.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":288066,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/30\/powers-and-limitations-in-exercise-of-jurisdiction-under-section-1563-crpc-with-regard-to-public-servant\/","url_meta":{"origin":381737,"position":0},"title":"Powers and Limitations in Exercise of Jurisdiction under Section 156(3) CrPC with Regard to Public Servant","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 30, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"by Vikas Upadhyay\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Regard to Public Servant","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-940.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-940.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-940.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-940.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":302173,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/22\/bombay-high-court-rejects-relief-mehul-choksi-declaring-fugitive-economic-offender-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":381737,"position":1},"title":"Purpose of FEO Act cannot be bypassed by taking recourse to CrPC; Bombay High Court refuses relief to Mehul Choksi","author":"Arunima","date":"September 22, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The purpose of Fugitive Economic Offenders Act is to provide for measures to deter fugitive economic offenders from evading the process of law in India by staying outside the jurisdiction of Indian courts, to preserve the sanctity of the rule of law in India and for matters connected therewith or\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"bombay high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/bombay-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":373390,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/21\/sc-jurisdiction-to-investigate-prevention-of-corruption-offences\/","url_meta":{"origin":381737,"position":2},"title":"State Police or its specialised agency can investigate Prevention of Corruption Act offences against Central Government Employees: Supreme Court","author":"Ritu","date":"January 21, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) is also a wing of State Police. The offences under the PC Act are also cognizable and can, therefore, be investigated by the State Police or VACB.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"jurisdiction to investigate Prevention of Corruption offences","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/jurisdiction-to-investigate-Prevention-of-Corruption-offences.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/jurisdiction-to-investigate-Prevention-of-Corruption-offences.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/jurisdiction-to-investigate-Prevention-of-Corruption-offences.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/jurisdiction-to-investigate-Prevention-of-Corruption-offences.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":272707,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/31\/delhi-court-rouse-avenue-district-court-denies-bail-chitraramakrishna-managingdirector-national-stock-exchange-money-laundering-corruption-telephone-tapping-illegal-legalupdates-legalnews-legalresearc\/","url_meta":{"origin":381737,"position":3},"title":"Delhi Court denies bail to Chitra Ramakrishna former MD NSE, for alleged active involvement in illegal interception of telephone calls of NSE employees","author":"Editor","date":"August 31, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Rouse Avenue District Courts, Delhi: In a case relating to illegal interception\/monitoring of telephone calls of National Stock Exchange \u2018NSE' employees by iSec Services Pvt. Ltd, a privately owned company under the guise of contract of Study of Cyber Vulnerabilities, whose approval was given by Chitra Ramakrishna (\u2018applicant')\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Rouse Avenue","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/rouse_avenue.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/rouse_avenue.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/rouse_avenue.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/rouse_avenue.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/rouse_avenue.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":221402,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/23\/del-hc-accused-whose-anticipatory-bail-is-rejected-by-sc-ought-to-surrender-before-io-concerned-proceedings-issued-under-s-83-crpc-held-not-vitiated\/","url_meta":{"origin":381737,"position":4},"title":"Del HC | Accused, whose anticipatory bail is rejected by SC, ought to surrender before IO concerned; proceedings issued under S. 83 CrPC held not vitiated","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 23, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0Brijesh Sethi, J. dismissed a criminal writ petition challenging the order of the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption) whereby proceedings\u00a0against the petitioner under Section 83 CrPC\u00a0(attachment of property of person absconding)\u00a0were initiated. The petitioner was involved in a case under Section 13(1)(d)\u00a0of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":279222,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/07\/pocso-supreme-court-grants-pre-arrest-bail-to-a-public-servant-accused-of-rape\/","url_meta":{"origin":381737,"position":5},"title":"POCSO| Supreme Court grants pre-arrest bail to a public servant accused of rape","author":"Editor","date":"December 7, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"The accused had argued that the complainant and her family, out of ill will, had orchestrated the complaint and were extorting the petitioner for their own means and benefits. Rajasthan High Court, however, did not appreciate the fact that the previous complaints filed by the prosecutrix was closed on account\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image69.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/381737","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=381737"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/381737\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":381741,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/381737\/revisions\/381741"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/381738"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=381737"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=381737"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=381737"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}