Back
2021 Supreme(Kar) 315
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
G. NARENDAR, J.
Manish Maheshwari Son of Mr. Mali Ram Maheshwari – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh Through Loni Border Police Station – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.11028 of 2021(GM-POLICE)
Decided on : 23-07-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri. C.V. Nagesh, for Sri. Mrinal Shankar, Vishwas N., Manu Kulkarni, Advs.)
For the Respondent: Sri. P. Prasanna Kumar, Adv.
Point of Law: a part cause of action would give rise or confer jurisdiction on the High Court within which the cause of action arises.
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 226, 226 (2) , 32 , 19(1)(a) , 19 and 227 - Criminal Procedure code,1973 - Sections 41-A, 482 and 160 - Revenue head in-charge of advertising and sales - Responsible for the transmission and further transmission of certain tweets and video - Whether it would give rise to a cause of action or not - Whether the writ petition is maintainable - Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain writ petition and quash the impugned Notice issued by respondent - Police in exercise of powers under Section 41A of Cr.P.C - What order - Whether the respondent could have invoked Section 41A of Cr.P.C. at all - whether any of the condition precedent - whether a High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition must be answered on basis of averments made in the petition, the truth or otherwise whereof being immaterial - Whether in the instant case Calcutta High Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the writ petition - Allegation, in sum and substance, against accused Nos. 8 and 9 is that they failed to stop the transmission by removing tweets despite being made aware that the incident on which tweets are based is a false news and that false news should not be propagated - Petitioner is an employee of Twitter Communications India Private Limited and that he is revenue head in-charge of advertising and sales - public designation of Managing Director is provided to petitioner but he has not been appointed as Managing Director in terms of Section 2(54) of the Companies Act - Petitioner has never been and is not a member of Board of Directors of TCIPL said fact is borne out by Company Master Data maintained by Authority and which fact is made available publicly on website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-C - Petitioner is not one of the Directors amongst the three named in the master data - Where all or any books of accounts and papers are maintained is described as Unit No. 101, First Floor, Tower 'B', RMZ Infinity, Old Madras Road.
Finding of the Court:
FIR was registered in a particular State is not the sole criterion to decide that no cause of action has arisen even partly within territorial limits of jurisdiction of another State - Nor are we to be understood that any person can create a fake cause of action or even concoct one by simply jutting into territorial limits of another State or by making a sojourn or even a permanent residence - place of residence of the person moving a High Court is not the criterion to determine contours of cause of action in that particular writ petition - High Court before which the writ petition is filed must ascertain whether any part of cause of action has arisen within territorial limits of its jurisdiction - Writ petition by petitioner, who is not an accused and his liberties not being governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure and in the light of fact that issuance of Section 41A of Cr.P.C Notice.
Result: Writ petition stands ordered accordingly
ORDER :
Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri. C.V. Nagesh along with Sri. Mrinal Shankar, Sri. Vishwas N. and Sri. Manu Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel Sri. Prasanna Kumar P, for the respondent.
2. Brief facts are that the petitioner is an employee of Twitter Communications India Private Limited (for short TCIPL) and that he is the revenue head incharge of advertising and sales. He being a senior employee of the company TCIPL, a public designation of Managing Director is provided to the petitioner but he has not been appointed as the Managing Director in terms of Section 2(54) of the Companies Act. Therefore the petitioner has never been and is not a member of the Board of Directors of TCIPL. That the said fact is borne out by the Company Master Data maintained by the Authority and which fact is made available publicly on the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-C. A bare perusal of Annexure-C would reveal that the petitioner is not one of the Directors amongst the three named in the master data. It is also relevant to note that the address of the registered office of TCIPL is described as C20, G Block, Near MCA Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai, Mumbai City, Maharashtra – 400 051, India and the address of the other office, where all or any books of accounts and papers are maintained is described as Unit No. 101, First Floor, Tower `B’, RMZ Infinity, Old Madras Road, Benniganahalli, Bengaluru – 560 016, Karnataka, India. The email ID in the master data is akapoor@twitter.com. The date of incorporation is shown as 20.02.2013. The petitioner is discharging his duties as an employee of TCIPL at the registered office at Bengaluru and is also residing at Bengaluru in the address detailed in the cause title.
3. The circumstances compelling the petitioner to approach this Court are as under:
A complaint came to be registered on 15.06.2021 at 23.20 hours on the information furnished by one Sri. Naresh Singh, Sub-Inspector, Thana Loni Border, Ghaziabad, U.P., India. In the said complaint 9 accused were named and action was sought against the accused on the ground that they are responsible for the transmission and further transmission of certain tweets and video. The allegation, in sum and substance, against accused Nos. 8 and 9 is that they failed to stop the transmission by removing the tweets despite being made aware that the incident on which the tweets are based is a false news and that false news should not be propagated. The background of the incident that led to the complaint and tweet is that there was an incident of an aged person by name Sri. Abdul Samad Saifi who was beaten and his beard was forcibly chopped off. The physical occurrence of the incident was videographed and the said video came to be uploaded on the social media platform popularly known as Twitter (8th accused). That the video that was uploaded was a doctored video and the manipulation involved purported act of forcing the victim to chant Jai Sri Ram and Vande Maataram. But, in fact, the group was a mix of members from both Hindu and Muslim community and that there was no coercion to chant Jai Sri Ram or Vande Maataram and that the assailants had assaulted the victim as they were unhappy with the amulets distributed by him, claiming that they possessed certain supernatural powers. The doctored video was immediately taken up by some of the accused with the sole intention of spreading communal disharmony and accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 have retweeted knowing fully well that it is a false news. That apart, the tweet by the aforesaid accused, has been retweeted by several others also due to which the doctored video and false news has spread on a large scale leading to increasing religious tension. Despite the clarification issued by the Ghaziabad Police, neither the doctored video nor the tweets have been deleted by the authorities who run and maintain the social medial platf
