Karnataka High Court
Vimalakar Reddy Bathena vs State Of Karnataka on 6 June, 2019
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3474/2015
BETWEEN:
Vimalakar Reddy Bathena,
S/o Late Narayana Reddy,
Aged about 66 years,
R/a No.12, Perrine Road,
Monmouth Junction,
New Jersey, USA-08852.
(Now at Bangalore, R/a No.101,
S.R.Enclave, Sadananda Nagar,
Bangalore-560 038)
... Petitioner
(By Sri.Tomy Sebastian, Senior Advocate for
Sri.M.Narayana Reddy, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
By Cyber Crime Branch Police,
Carlton House, Palace Road,
Bangalore City-560 001.
2. Mr.P.Venkat Reddy,
Aged about 78 years,
S/o Late Subba Reddy,
R/a No.14-2-101/127,
Flat No.B-611, Maharaja Residency,
Balmatta Road, Hampana Katta,
Mangalore-575 001.
2
3. Mr.P.N.Krishna Reddy,
Aged about 47 years,
S/o Narayana Reddy,
R/at No.851/4, SLV Nilaya,
1st Floor, 4th Cross, C.T.layout,
Marathahalli,
Bangalore-560 037.
... Respondents
(By Sri.Chetan Desai, HCGP for R1
Sri.M.Nagesh, Advocate for R2-Absent
Sri.K.V.Sathish, Advocate for R3-Absent)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., praying to quash the order dated 05.06.2015 passed
by the I ACMM, Bangalore in CC.No.10185/2015 by relaxing
the condition No.3 and 1 (accused No.1) shall not leave the
jurisdiction of this Court till the disposal of the case" and
permit the petitioner to leave the jurisdiction of Bangalore city
as prayed for by him in his application dated 26.05.2015
(Annexure-F).
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
Petitioner is aggrieved by the action initiated against him by respondent No.1 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 72A and 84B of Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred as to 'the Act'). 3
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 are absent.
3. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint before respondent No.1 alleging that the petitioner herein committed offences punishable under Sections 72(A) and 84(B) of the Act by disclosing the personal information relating to the joint account bearing No.209010172159 held by him and his daughter, maintained in ING Vysya Bank Limited, Indiranagar Branch, Bengaluru.
4. Section 72A of the Act prohibits disclosure of information in breach of lawful contract. The Section reads as under;
"72A Punishment for disclosure of information in breach of lawful contract. -Save as otherwise provided in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any person including an intermediary who, while providing services under the terms of lawful contract, has secured access to any material containing personal information about another person, with the intent to cause or knowing that 4 he is likely to cause wrongful loss or wrongful gain discloses, without the consent of the person concerned, or in breach of a lawful contract, such material to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees, or with both."
5. As per this section, action can be taken for the unlawful disclosure of the information relating to a person only when the person is aggrieved by the disclosure of the said information. In the instant case, though respondent No.2 has lodged the complaint stating that the Savings Bank account No.209010172159 is a joint account standing in his name and in the name of his daughter Kiran Jyothna Patur, yet, the petitioner has asserted in the petition that the said account stands in the name of Kiran Jyothna Patur and not in the name of the complainant. This assertion is not disputed by the contesting respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced copy of the said account bearing No.209010172159 which discloses that it stands only in the name of Kiran Jyothna Patur and not in the name of the complainant as stated above in the complaint. There is nothing on record to 5 show that the said Kiran Jyothna Patur has any grievance against the petitioner for disclosure of the personal information held by her with the Bank. It is not her case that she has suffered any wrongful loss on account of the issuance of the Bank statement relating to her account. It is also not the case of the complainant that the petitioner herein has issued the alleged statement. Section 72A is applicable to the service provider or to a person who is bound under a lawful contract. There is nothing on record to show that the complainant has entered into any contract with the petitioner. Respondent No.2, namely, the complainant therefore cannot be construed as aggrieved by the disclosure of any information maintained by the Bank, in respect of the account standing in the individual name of Kiran Jyothna Patur. As long as the personal information belonging to the complainant has not been disclosed by the petitioner and no objection having been raised by the account holder in respect of the alleged disclosure, in my view, the provisions of Section 72A of the Act do not get attracted to the facts of the case, 6 consequently, prosecution of the petitioner for the said offence being an abuse to the process of Court is liable to be quashed.
6. Insofar as the offence under Section 84(B) of the Act is concerned, it deals with the abetment of the offence. When the ingredients of the principal offence itself is not made out, question of abetting the said offence does not arise at all. As a result, prosecution initiated against the petitioner being an abuse to the provisions of the Act, impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, petition is allowed. The action initiated against the petitioner by respondent No.1 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 72A and 84B of Information Technology Act, 2000, are quashed insofar as the petitioner-accused No.1 is concerned.
Sd/-
JUDGE SB