Karnataka High Court
Sri Mukesh P Shet vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 July, 2016
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N. Phaneendra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2016
:BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 673/2015
BETWEEN:
SRI. MUKESH P. SHET,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 855/17, 15TH MAIN,
RAJAJINAGAR, 3RD BLOCK,
BANGALORE - 560 010 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MADHUSUDHAN M. N., ADVOCATE )
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY RAJAJINAGAR P.S., REP. BY S. P. P.,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE.
2. BANGALORE RAJU VENKATESH PRASANNA,
MAJOR, FATHER'S NAME
NOT KNOWN, R/AT H. NO. 680,
11TH B MAIN, 2ND BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 010. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, HCGP FOR R1.
2
SRI BANGALORE RAJU VENKATESHA PRASANNA - R2
[PARTY IN PERSON])
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 397(1) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED ON
APPLICATION FILED U/S 216 OF CR.P.C. IN
C.C.NO.14767/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I A.C.M.M.,
BANGALORE DATED 13.4.2015.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON
FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The respondent No.1 police have registered a case in CC No.14767/2011 particularly for the offence punishable under section 66-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 on the ground that the petitioner has sent E-mail from his E-mail address to the public against the Complainant i.e., the second respondent herein which reads as follows:
"E-ª ÉÄà ®ï [email protected] ªÀÄÄSÁAvgÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀÄjvÀÄ mukanthara sakshi-1 ravarannu kurithu Bengaluru Raju Venkatesh Prasanna has been to Australia for further 3 studies in computer science. All of a sudden one fine day about 7/8 years back he returned from Australia. His neighbours say that he has been deported from Australia for molesting a girl, from them he is with his parents un-married and un-employed, you can conclude why a computer graduate is un- employed at this time."
2. The trial Court has taken cognizance of the offence which was called in question before this Court in Criminal Petition No.6048/2011. This Court vide order dated 17.1.2012, has come to the conclusion that Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act cannot be applied and that the information sent by petitioner is per se defamatory. The Court has further observed that such information will attract an offence u/s.499 of Cr.P.C. Whether the information was sent in good faith or not, whether petitioner had intention to protect the interest of public are the matters for consideration 4 during trial. With the said observation, this Court in the above said case, dismissed the Revision Petition.
3. Thereafter, the trial Court has framed charges u/s.66-A of the Information Technology Act.
4. The learned High Court Government Pleader appears to have made an application before the trial court u/s.216 of Cr.P.C. for alteration of the charges.
5. After hearing both the sides, the trial Court has altered and framed charges for the offence punishable under section 499 of IPC. The said order is called in question before this Court in this petition.
6. Sri Madhusudhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously contends that the trial Court has not applied its mind before altering the charges. When once the provisions of Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, has been struck down, there is no question of framing charges under 5 that Section or u/s.499 of IPC. Secondly, he contends that the trial Court has not given its own reasons for coming to such conclusion. Hence, he pleaded for setting aside the order of the learned trial Court.
7. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 who is party in person has submitted that the order of the trial Court is in tact and correct and there is no room for interference at the hands of this Court, and therefore the Revision Petition is to be dismissed.
8. In Criminal Petition No.6048/2011, the learned Judge after thorough investigation of the materials on record, has passed an order dated 17.1.2012, refusing to quash the proceedings. Further, there is an indication in the said order that Section 66- A of Information Technology Act, is not strictly applicable, nevertheless, the allegations made in the FIR and the charge sheet attract provisions of Section 499 6 of IPC. When the High Court after going through the contents of the charge sheet, has come to the conclusion that the said allegation attract Section 499 of IPC, there is no room for the trial Court to differ from the opinion of the High Court. If the High Court left it to the discretion of the trial Court, then the trial Court would have exercised its discretion. Therefore, I do not find any strong reasons to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Court which is impugned in this petition.
9. More over, it is a well propounded principle of Criminal jurisprudence that the Court has to go through the entire charge sheet papers and find out what are all the penal provisions that would attract on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or in the charge sheet papers. The Court will not mechanically frame the charges, just relying upon the provisions invoked by the police. Police may invoke 7 many number of provisions, though the allegations may not attract those provisions. Therefore, at the time of framing of the charges, it is the fundamental duty of the Court to look into the allegations made in the charge sheet and find out as to which of the penal provisions would attract.
10. Therefore, this Court, on going through the entire allegations made in the charge sheet earlier found that Section 499 of IPC is attracted and has given a finding. That order has not been challenged anywhere by the petitioner. Therefore, in my opinion, the learned trial Court relying upon the earlier order passed by this Court, altering the charge framed for the offence punishable under section 499 of IPC is well founded and it does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. However, it is made it clear that the defence which has been taken by the petitioner can be agitated during the course of evidence before the trial Court. In 8 fact, this Court in the earlier order also made it clear that whether such information was sent in good faith and in the interest of the Public and whether the petitioner had an intention to protect the interest of public or not, have to be thrashed out during the course of full dressed trial. In addition to that, the petitioner is also at liberty to establish all his defence taken up by him.
11. With these observations, in my opinion, the Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, dismissed.
The trial Court is hereby directed to take up the matter as expeditiously as possible and dispose of the same.
Whatever the observations made by this Court in the earlier petition or in this petition, shall not in any 9 manner persuade the trial Court while disposing of the case on merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE PL*