The Information Technology Act, 2000 has been contentious legislation since its enactment. The Act gave a new direction to how cyber-crimes are dealt with in India. However, the question we ask today is whether it fits satisfactorily in the current scenario or does it require revision. The case was held by the High court of Allahabad through the learned bench by single bench In Hon’ble Sanjay Kumar Singh, J. the matter of Niyaz Ahmad Khan Versus State of U.P. and Another [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 28742 of 2021] dealt with an issue mentioned above
By means of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the charge-sheet dated 27.01.2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 296 of 2019, cognizance/summoning order dated 22.07.2020 and proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2887 of 2020 (State Vs. Niyaz Ahmad Khan), under Section 67 Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 and Section 500 IPC, Police Station Mehndawal, District Sant Kabir Nagar pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar.
The main substratum of the argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that during the investigation, Inspector In-charge, Police Station Dharamsinghwa, District Sant Kabir Nagar submitted a surveillance report dated 13.01.2020 mentioning that on account of nonavailability of Uniform Resource Locator (URL) of ID, it is not possible to trace the details of an unknown person, who made the objectionable photo viral. As per the prosecution case, the applicant has only shared the objectionable posts in question. Charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant without proper investigation. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case, therefore, the aforesaid impugned charge-sheet and summoning order against the applicant is liable to be quashed.
This Court does not find this case falling in the categories as recognized by the Apex Court for quashing the criminal proceeding of the trial court at the pre-trial stage. Considering the facts, circumstances and nature of allegations against the applicant in this case, the cognizable offence is made out. At this stage, only prima facie satisfaction of the Court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required. The impugned criminal proceeding under the facts of this case cannot be said to be an abuse of the process of the Court. There is no good ground to invoke inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court.
Judgment reviewed by Sakshi Mishra