Delhi District Court
Alok Mukherjee vs Olx India (P) Ltd. on 7 October, 2015
CC No. 35/1/13
PS Hauz Khas
Alok Mukherjee vs OLX India (P) Ltd.
7.10.2015
Pr. Sh. Saurabh Agrawal and Ms. Komal Mundhra, proxy counsel for complainant.
Arguments heard from proxy counsel as he stated that main counsel will not
come.
Vide separate order, complaint is dismissed u/s. 203 CrPC.
File be consigned to record room. Documents if any, be disposed off as per rules.
(Ankit Singla)
MM-03/South Distt.
Saket / 08.10.2015
CC No. 35/1/13
PS Hauz Khas
Alok Mukherjee vs OLX India (P) Ltd.
7.10.2015
ORDER
In brief the facts of the complaint are that some unknown person posted the mobile number of the daughter of complainant Medha Mukherjee along with advertisements for sale of her Skoda Car, I-phone and a Pub Puppy.
It is also alleged that this post was made by some unknown whereas the complainant's daughter never visited the website nor owns the goods mentioned in the advertisement.
In response to this advertisement she started getting number of calls which caused mental harassment and torture to her. Thereafter request was made to website OLX to remove the post but needful was not done. This complaint was filed u/s. 66A and u/s. 66C of Indian Information Technology Act.
Section 66 of IT Act is struck down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in WP No. 167 of 2012 in a case titled as Shreya Singhal v UOI WP21 of 2013.
As far as Section 268 IPC is concerned , it deals with public nuisance. In the present matter nuisance if any has been caused to an individual not to public in general. Accordingly, section 268 IPC cannot be attracted in the present case.
In complaint, it is also pleaded that accused has also committed an offence u/s. 66C IT Act. Section 66 C IT Act states that "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."
IT Act 2000, does not define dishonestly or fraudulently. As per section 25 IPC "A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise."
Whereas dishonestly is defined by section 24 which says that "Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing "dishonestly".
In the present matter neither there was any intention to deceive nor wrongful gain or loss to any person is caused. It cannot be said that person who posted the wrong information was having dishonest or fraudulent intention. It may be at mischief at the maximum.
Further, there is no use of unique identification mark i.e. mobile number. Mere posting a mobile number along with advertisement cannot be said to be use as intended by this section.
In such circumstances, it can be said safely that no offence u/s. 66C IT Act is also committed.
In such circumstances, complaint is dismissed u/s. 203 CrPC. File be consigned to record room.
(Ankit Singla) MM-03/South Distt.
Saket / 07.10.2015