Karnataka High Court
C. Sagaya Mary @ Kumari W/O Vincent vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 September, 2020
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101672/2017
Between:
C.Sagaya Mary @ Kumari W/o. Vincent,
Aged about 45 years, Occ: Household work,
And social work,
R/o. Kumar Shop,. Basavaraj House,
Anandpur, Bangalore.
...Petitioner
(By Sri. Shivasai M. Patil, Advocate)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by
The State Public Prosecutor,
High Court building, Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad.
2. Smt. Pushpavati W/o. Parashuram Halagi,
Aged about 45 years, Occ: Samata Sainik Dal,.
And RPI President, R/o. Annigeri,
Tq. Navalagund, Dist. Dharwad.
...Respondents
(Sri. Jeevan J. Neeralagi, AGA for R1;
Sri. Hemanthkumar L. Havaragi, Advocate for R2)
:2:
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the entire proceedings in
C.C.No.448 of 2015 (Annigeri Police Station, Annigeri,
Crime NO.83 of 2014) pending before the Civil Judge and
JMFC Court, Navalagund, by allowing this petition.
This petition coming on for Admission, this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C.No.448/2015 in Annigeri Police Station Crime NO.83/2014, now pending before the Civil Judge & JMFC Court, Navalagund.
2. The complainant No.1 who is the respondent No.2 herein had filed a complaint stating that she was working in the Samata Sainik Dal as also an President of the Dharwad District, RPI.
3. It is alleged that, she has received messages on her phone from another mobile bearing No.8970802528 making allegations against her as regards her modesty, fidelity and alleged illegal relationship with :3: the State President of the Samata Sainik Dal and RTI party.
4. It is on account of the same, a complaint came to be filed by respondent No.2 on 30.05.2015, seeking for initiation of the action against the owner of the mobile bearing No.8970802528 from which those messages were sent. Based thereon the above Crime was registered on 18.06.2014 at 19:30 hours for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 509 of IPC and Section 66A of the Information Technology Act.
5. Sri. Shivasai M. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of India, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 1, Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act has been struck down. Therefore, no proceedings could be initiated or continued under the said provision. Though in the present case, the complaint was filed prior to :4: the Judgment passed in the case of Shreya Singhal (supra), the prosecution is continued under Section 66A and therefore is required to be quashed.
6. Sri. Jeevan J. Neeralagi, learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1 submit that, the position of law as on today as regards Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act, as submitted by Sri. Shivasai M. Patil is correct, but however, he submits that the complaint as filed against the petitioner is not only under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, there are various other offences alleged against the petitioner under various provisions of IPC. Hence, he states that, those proceedings in respect of offences under IPC would have to be continued.
7. Heard Sri. Shivasai M. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Jeevan J. Neeralagi, learned AGA for respondent No.1, Sri. Hemanthkumar L. Havaragi, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the papers.
:5:
8. Having regard to the Judgment in Shreya Singhal (supra) case, where Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act has been held to be un-constitutional, I am of the considered opinion that, Section 66-A being struck down from the statute book, the pending proceedings could not continue under the said provision which no longer exists in the statute book. In view thereof, the proceedings against the petitioner herein insofar as Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act is quashed. However, the proceedings in C.C.No.448/2015 arising out of Crime No.83/2014 pending before the Civil Judge & JMFC Court, Navalagund, shall continue against the petitioner insofar as the offences complained against the petitioner under other provisions of IPC.
9. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE *Svh/-