SHILPI LAWRENCE ELENJIKAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court is now required to decide as to for the purpose of criminal investigation, what would be the sex of the petitioner. Petitioner, who is present in person says that she is she and should be identified as such, whereas learned State counsel would urge that the Investigating Officer has to act in accordance with the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which defines 'men' and 'women' and accordingly, the Investigating Officer has taken a decision.

(2.) Heard petitioner, present in person, learned A.G.A and perused the records.

(3.) In the instant case, an F.I.R was filed by the petitioner, which was registered as F.I.R No. 311 of 2018 under Sec. 377 and 385 I.P.C. The petitioner claims that she has identified herself as she and she should be treated as such. In view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of National Legal Services Authority Vs. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438. On the last date i.e. on 2/4/2019, when the matter was heard, the Court passed, inter-alia, the following order-