- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Tarakant Devnarayan Dwivedi v. State Of Maharashtra
Factual and Procedural Background
Respondent No. 2 filed a private complaint against the Applicant, a press reporter, registered as C.R. No. 4 of 2015 at Kolsewadi Police Station, Kalyan, District Thane, alleging offences under section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code. The Applicant had published an article in the Mumbai Mirror on 28.06.2010 about the condition of a government arms store room. An earlier private complaint under the Indian Official Secrets Act, 1923 resulted in FIR C.R. No. 171 of 2010, and the Applicant filed Criminal Application No. 1088 of 2011, during which the Advocate General indicated a closure report would be filed. The Applicant subsequently published other articles, following which the present complaint under section 66A and sections 500 and 501 IPC was lodged. At the hearing, the Applicant did not appear and the court heard the learned public prosecutor for the State.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an FIR alleging an offence under section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 remains maintainable in view of the Apex Court's decision in Shreya Singal v. Union of India (Writ Petition No. 167 of 2012).
- Whether offences under sections 500 and 501 IPC are cognizable such that an FIR can be registered for them.
- Whether the FIR in the present matter should be quashed given the statutory and precedent-based considerations.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Shreya Singal v. Union of India in Writ Petition No. 167 of 2012 | Declared section 66A of the Information Technology Act as ultra virus to the Constitution of India. | The court relied on this decision to treat offences under section 66A as unsustainable; in view of the police treating the matter as an N.C. complaint, the court quashed the FIR while reserving rights of aggrieved persons under sections 500 and 501 IPC. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court observed that sections 500 and 501 IPC are non-cognizable offences, and therefore an FIR cannot properly be registered for those offences (at most a non-cognizable complaint). The court noted the Apex Court's decision in Shreya Singal v. Union of India declaring section 66A of the IT Act ultra vires the Constitution. The learned counsel for the State informed the court that, in view of that decision, the police had registered the alleged offence as a non-cognizable complaint. Given these developments—the non-cognizable nature of sections 500/501 and the invalidation of section 66A—the court concluded that the criminal application did not survive and proceeded to quash the FIR, while expressly reserving the aggrieved parties' right to pursue appropriate proceedings under sections 500 and 501 IPC.
Holding and Implications
FIR QUASHED
Holding: The petition was allowed and disposed of; the FIR was quashed.
Implications: The immediate effect is that the FIR against the Applicant is quashed. The court reserved the rights of aggrieved persons to initiate appropriate proceedings before the competent authority under sections 500 and 501 IPC. The decision follows and applies the Apex Court's ruling on section 66A; the opinion does not purport to establish a new precedent beyond applying that ruling.
1. None appears on behalf of the Applicant. Heard the learned public prosecutor for the State.
2. Respondent No. 2 has filed a private complaint against the Applicant which was registered as C.R No. 4 of 2015 with Kolsewadi Police Station, Kalyan Dist. Thane for the offence punishable under section 66(A) of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 and under sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant, who is a Press Reporter by profession, has published an article about the pathetic condition of the store room where weapons/arms are stored by the State Government. This article was published by the Applicant in daily newspaper “Mumbai Mirror” on 28.06.2010 It appears that the private complaint was filed by an individual under the Indian Official Secrets Act, 1923 and the FIR was registered vide C.R No. 171 of 2010 against the applicant. The Applicant then approached this court by filing Criminal Application being Criminal Application No. 1088 of 2011, wherein a statement was made by the Advocate General, informing the court that a closure report would be filed in respect of the said complaint.
4. Thereafter, the applicant published various other articles in the newspapers. A complaint, therefore, was lodged against the applicant under section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and under sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. So far as sections 500 and 501 are concerned, those are non cognizable offences and as such, therefore, a FIR cannot be registered for the commission of the said offences and at the most a N.C complaint can be registered by the Police. So far as section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 is concerned, the Apex Court in the case of Shreya Singal v. Union of India in Writ Petition No. 167 of 2012 has declared section 66A of the Information Technology Act, as ultra virus to the Constitution of India.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has informed us that in view of this decision of the Apex Court, the police have now registered the said offence as N.C complaint. In view of this subsequent development, therefore, this criminal application does not survive. The FIR is, therefore, quashed, reserving the rights of the aggrieved persons to take out appropriate proceedings before the competent authority under sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. The Petition is accordingly allowed and is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Alert