Karnataka High Court
N Suresh vs R Ahalya on 25 November, 2021
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7442/2017
BETWEEN
N. SURESH
S/O. T. NATARAJAN
AGED 33 YEARS
PLOT NO.51, SANTHOSH BAI STREET
SHRI PARASNATH NAGAR
THUNDALAM
CHENNAI - 600 077 ... PETITIONER
[BY SMT. NEERAJA KARANTH, ADVOCATE
(PHYSICAL HEARING)]
AND
1. R. AHALYA
D/O. P. RAJENDRAN
AGED 28 YEARS
R/AT. D BLOCK, FOURTH FLOOR
FEATHERLITE VAIKUNTAM APARTMENT
NO.6, GST ROAD, NANDIVARAM VILLAGE
GUDUVANCHERI
CHENNAI - 603 202
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
NO.511, MERIDIYEN APARTMENTS
YENEPOYA UNIVERSITY
DERALAKATTE
MANGALURU - 573 020
D.K. DISTRICT
2
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
ULLALA POLICE STATION
D.K.DISTRICT - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY:
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001
... RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI. K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R2
(PHYSICAL HEARING)
R1 - SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)]
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR
NO.275/2017 REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 66(C)
AND 72 OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT (ON THE
FILE OF THE J.M.F.C.-III COURT, MANGALURU),
PURSUANT TO THE POLICE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in Crime No.275/2017 pending before the JMFC (III Court), Mangaluru alleging offences punishable under Sections 66C and 72 of the 3 Information Technology Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' for short).
2. Heard Smt. Neeraja Karanth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. K.S. Abhijith, learned HCGP for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:
The petitioner and respondent No.1 - complainant were husband and wife. Both of them get married on 31.08.2014 and out of several differences that arose between the couple, several proceedings are instituted by both of them. The petitioner has instituted proceedings for annulment of marriage in HMOP No.336/2016. On receipt of notice from the hands of the Court before whom the proceedings and for dissolution of marriage is pending, the first respondent files a Domestic Violence case under Section 12 of 4 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in Crl.M.C.No.201/2016 before the competent Court at Mangaluru seeking payment of maintenance of Rs.60,000/- per month. The ground on which maintenance was sought by respondent No.1 before the Court at Mangaluru was that she was a housewife and not employed. The petitioner in order to defend himself, draws up the salary slip of respondent No.1 -
complainant and produces it before the Court at Mangaluru, where the Domestic Violence proceedings were pending adjudication in which maintenance amount of Rs.60,000/- per month was prayed by the complainant.
4. The salary slip was drawn from the e-filing portal, where all the family members of the petitioner and the first respondent were filing their Income Tax Returns, which was a portal that was accessible to the family. The petitioner accessed to the same and 5 produced the salary slip of respondent No.1 working at Accenture and also filing Income Tax Returns to that effect. It is after the said document was produced before the Court at Mangaluru, respondent No.1 registers the subject complaint against the petitioner invoking Sections 66C and 72 of the said Act.
Section 66C and 72 of the said Act reads as follows:
"66C. Punishment for identity theft. Whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly make use of the electronic signature, password or any other unique identification feature of any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to rupees one lakh.
72. Breach of confidentiality and privacy.- Save as otherwise provided in this Act or any other law for the time being in 6 force, any person who, in pursuant of any of the powers conferred under this Act, rules or regulations made there under, has secured access to any electronic record, book, register, correspondence, information, document or other material without the consent of the person concerned discloses such electronic record, book, register, correspondence, information, document or other material to any other person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.
72A. Punishment for Disclosure of information in breach of lawful contract. (Inserted vide ITAA-2008)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 he is likely to cause wrongful loss or wrongful 7 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 a fine which may extend to five lakh rupees, or with both."
5. Section 66C of the said Act deals with punishment for identity theft and mandates that whoever would frequently and dishonestly make use of the electronic signature or any unique identification feature of any other person, shall be punished.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner at the time when the same was produced before the Court was the complainant's husband and the portal from which the salary slip was drawn was a family portal through which the Income Tax Returns being filed by the family of the petitioner and the first respondent and the petitioner has not used the said document before any 8 other fora or in any other transaction for a complaint to be registered under Section 66C or even Section 72 of the said Act.
7. Section 72 of the said Act deals with penalty for breach of confidentiality and privacy. The petitioner has produced it before the Court of law in his defence to refute the claim of the wife - complainant that she was housewife and had no source of income. It was only to demolish the claim, the petitioner sought to produce such defence. This cannot amount to the breach of confidentiality and privacy, as at that point in time, the document was drawn from the family portal through which the Income Tax Returns were being filed. Therefore, the complaint registered by the first respondent would in no manner link to the offences alleged under Sections 66C or 72 of the said Act.
8. The submission of the learned HCGP is that it is a matter of trial, as the investigation is yet to 9 conclude is unacceptable for the reason that on a perusal of a complaint and the offences alleged would not even link to any act of the petitioner for those offences, permitting continuance of investigation or trial on such facts would without a doubt be an abuse of the process of the law and lead to the miscarriage of justice.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER i. Criminal Petition is allowed.
ii. Proceedings in Crime No.275/2017 pending before the JMFC (III Court), Mangaluru stands quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
Sd/-
JUDGE KG