SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 248

A. S. BOPANNA, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
Apoorva Arora – Appellant
Versus
State (Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi) – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sajan Poovayya, Sr. Adv Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ameet Naik, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer, Adv. Ms. Madhu Gadodiaya, Adv. Mr. Chirag Nayak, Adv. Ms. Sanjanthi Sajan Poovayya, Adv. Mr. Madhu Gadodiaya, Adv. Ms. Misha Rohatgi, Adv. Mr. Devansh Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Raksha Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Kajal Dalal, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kakker, Adv. Mr. Raksha Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Mishra, Adv. Mr. Sujoy Mukharji, Adv. Ms. Tarini Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mrs. Madhavi Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Harish Salve, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ameet Naik, Adv. Mr. Raghav Shankar, Adv. Ms. Madhu Gadodia, Adv. Mr. Harshvardhan Jha, Adv. Mrs. Yugandhara Pawar Jha, AOR Mr. Sujoy Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Tarini Kulkarni, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Mishra, Adv. Mr. Aman Pathak, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. Sarath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Khanna, Adv. Mr. Karthik Jasra, Adv. Dr. Arun Kr. Yadav, Adv. Mr. Arvind Singh, Adv. Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv. Ms. Satvika Thakur, Adv. Mr. Yogi Rajpurohit, Adv. Mr. Aayush Saklani, Adv. Mr. Shubham Mishra, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. V V V Pattabhi Ram, Adv. Mr. Prashant Rawat, Adv. Mr. Purnendu Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Ms. Khushboo Aggarwal, Adv.

JUDGMENT :

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants/accused are the actors, casting director, script writers, creator of the web-series ‘College Romance’1[TVF Media Labs Private Ltd.], and the media company that owns the YouTube channel on which the web-series was hosted2[Contagious Online Media Network Pvt Ltd.]. They are sought to be investigated and prosecuted for production, transmission, and online publication of obscene and sexually-explicit material under Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, 3[‘IT Act’ hereinafter.]. The appellants’ petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19734[‘CrPC’ hereinafter.] for quashing the orders of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge directing registration of FIR against them was dismissed by the High Court by the order impugned before us. 5[In Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 2399 of 2020, Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 2215 of 2020 and Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 2214 of 2020, judgment dated 06.03.2023 (‘Impugned judgment’ hereinafter).] Having considered the matter in detail and for the reasons to follow, we have allowed the appeal, s

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
        whatsapp-icon Back to top