Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sachit Kaansal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 May, 2017
1
MCRC.13748/2016
Sachin Kaansal
v.
State of M.P. & Anr.
03/05/2017
Shri J.S.Kushwaha, counsel for the applicant.
Shri Mohd. Irshad, Panel Lawyer for the respondent
no.1/State.
Shri Pratip Visoriya, counsel for the respondent no.2.
This petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet filed by the police in Crime No.267/2016 registered by Police Station Kotwali, District Ashoknagar for offence under Sections 506 of IPC and under Section 66-A of Information Technology Act.
The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that the complainant Rajeev Soni made a complaint to the effect that the applicant had extended threat by his Mobile No.9425131955. During investigation, it was certified that the said sim is registered in the name of the applicant and a call was made from the said mobile no. to the complainant on 11/03/2016 in between 10:21-11:30. Accordingly, the police registered the offence under Section 66-A of Information Technology Act and under Section 506 of IPC. The police, after investigating the matter and completing the investigation, filed the charge-sheet for offence under Section 506 of IPC and under Section 66-A of Information Technology Act.
Challenging the charge-sheet filed by the police, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the Supreme Court in the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union 2 MCRC.13748/2016 of India reported in (2015) 5 SCC 1 has struck down Section 66-A of Information Technology Act in its entirety being violative of Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India and, therefore, the police should not have filed the charge-sheet for offence under Section 66-A of Information Technology Act, 2000.
Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the police after concluding the investigation has filed the charge-sheet and the applicant has right to argue the matter before the Trial Court and, therefore no interference should be made at this stage by this Court.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The Supreme Court in the case of Shreya Singhal (supra) has held as under:-
"124. In conclusion, we may summarise what has been held by us above:
124.1. Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is struck down in its entirety being violative of Article 19(1)(a) and not saved under Article 19(2).
124.2. Section 69-A and the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 are constitutionally valid.
124.3. Section 79 is valid subject to Section 79(3)(b) being read down to mean that an intermediary upon receiving actual knowledge from a court order or on being notified by the appropriate government or its agency that unlawful acts relatable to Article 19(2) are going to be committed then fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to such material. Similarly, the Information Technology "Intermediary Guidelines" Rules, 2011 are valid subject to 3 MCRC.13748/2016 Rule 3 sub-rule (4) being read down in the same manner as indicated in the judgment.
124.4. Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act is struck down being violative of Article 19(1)(a) and not saved by Article 19(2)."
Thus, it is clear that Section 66-A of Information Technology Act has been struck down by the Supreme Court being violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
Once Section 66-A of Information Technology Act has been declared ultra virus, then the applicant cannot be prosecuted for the commission of the said offence.
Accordingly, the charge-sheet filed by the police for offence under Section 66-A of Information Technology Act is hereby quashed.
It appears that the charges have not been framed so far, therefore, the Trial Court shall be free to frame any other charge if it is made out and with aforesaid observation, the petition is partially allowed.
The charge-sheet filed under Section 66-A of Information Technology Act, 2000 is quashed. However, the Trial Court shall proceed further with the charge- sheet for offence under Section 506 of IPC or for any other offence which can be said to have been made out under the facts and circumstances of the case.
With the aforesaid, the petition is partially allowed.
(G.S.Ahluwalia)
AKS Judge