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

2018 Supreme(Bom) 1562

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
BHANUBHAI SHARMA - Applicant
Versus
VIKAS KALYANAM NARAYAN and another - Respondents
Cri. Appln. No. 817 of 2018
Decided on : 17-07-2018

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant : Aabad Ponda along with Swapnil Ambure, Edith Dey and Mikhail Dey instructed by M/s Dinesh Tiwari and Associates
For the Respondent: Rafique Shaikh along with Sharif Khan and Deepak, Y. M. Nakhwa, APP, PI Pramod R. Khopikar and PSI Yogesh R. Khanure, Cyber Police Station, Crime Branch, Mumbai, present.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Applicant seeks to challenge the order - Granting judicial custody - First Information Report (FIR) - Respondent No. 1 was arrested in connection with C.R., registered with Cyber Police Station. Respondent No. 1 was produced before the Court for remand - He was remanded to police custody On next date police custody was sought by investigating officer by producing the accused for further remand - However, learned Magistrate refused to extend the police custody and granted judicial custody to respondent No. 1 - Applicant is original complainant representing Motors Insurance Broking and Advisory Services Limited, upon whose complaint the aforesaid FIR was registered for offences punishable under sections 419, 500, 501, 502, 504 read with section 120-B and 34 of Indian Penal Code as well as section 66-C and D of the Information Technology Act. It is case of complainant that respondent No. 1 is an ex-employee of the complainants company whose services were terminated, due to insubordination and loss of confidence - Held, Sub-section (3) of Criminal Procedure Code requires the Magistrate to record his reasons under this section for authorising detention in custody of the police. It is thus clear that grant of police custody is not a mechanical process. In the present case, the Court refused police custody for the reasons mentioned therein - Burden to assign reasons for police custody is stipulated in aforesaid provision. Hence, if the Court is not satisfied with reasons for grant of police custody, it is appropriate to remand the accused to judicial custody - Court has taken into consideration the progress of investigation and in the light of observations made in order no interference is called for. Hence, the application deserves to be dismissed - Application dismissed.

ORDER :

1. By invoking inherent powers of this Court under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant seeks to challenge the order dated 10th July, 2018, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 37th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, in RA No. 71/2018 granting judicial custody to respondent No. 1 till 21st July, 2018.

2. Respondent No. 1 was arrested on 7th July, 2018, in connection with C.R.No. 3 of 2018, registered with Cyber Police Station. Respondent No. 1 was produced before the Court for remand on 8th July, 2018. He was remanded to police custody till 10th July, 2018. On the next date i.e. on 10th July, 2018, police custody was sought by the investigating officer by producing the accused for further remand. However, learned Magistrate refused to extend the police custody and granted judicial custody to respondent No. 1.

3. The applicant is the original complainant representing M/s Tata Motors Insurance Broking and Advisory Services Limited, upon whose complaint the aforesaid FIR was registered on 14th April, 2018, for the offences punishable under sections 419, 500, 501, 502, 504 read with section 120-B and 34 of Indian Penal Code as well as section 66-C and D of the Information Technology Act. It is the case of the complainant that respondent No. 1 is an ex-employee of the complainant's company whose services were terminated on 5th August, 2016, due to insubordination and loss of confidence. Respondent No. 1 is the resident of Kolkata and along with the other accused committed crime which is the subject matter of First Information Report (FIR) bearing No. 3 of 2018.

4. Applicant's contention is that respondent No. 1 has committed a serious crime, as stated in the FIR. It is alleged that the accused had circulated various E-mails knowing the same to be false for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience and maligning the reputation as well as prestige of M/s Tata Motors Insurance Broking and Advisory Services Limited. Mr. Tarun Samant is the former CEO of the complainant company. While issuing Graduation Degree Certificate, Choudhary Charan Singh University misspelled his name as “Sawant” instead of “Samant”. Capitalising on the said error, Arise Foundation has addressed innumerable E-mail complaint and letters to various authorities which were malicious, defamatory, baseless and made with intention of maligning defaming and harassing company and Mr. Samant and by said criminal act wrongful gain caused to accused and wrongful loss to company by way of loss of business. It is alleged that due to large number of E-mails containing false and frivolous statements received by IRDA from Arise India Foundation, IRDA conducted their own inquiries into the matter of Tarun Samant's educational qualifications and certificates as well as other defamatory allegations made in the E-mails. Extensive correspondence was exchanged between Mr. Samant, said Company, IRDAI and Chaudhary Charan Singh University to ascertain the truth of the matter and the same was resolved and the truth ascertained to the satisfaction of all concerned parties. Arise India claims to be a NGO but appears to be acting at the behest of vested interest. It is further alleged that accused Dr. Kodur Venkatesh and Raghvendra Kowalgi were founder and Western India head of the said NGO. The company was forced to file suit in the High Court on 28th March, 2017. The High Court directed Deputy Commissioner of Police, Cyber Crime Investigation Cell to investigate the matter and submit report to Court. The High Court vide order dated 22nd May, 2017,granted liberty to file appropriate proceedings under provisions of Indian Penal Code and Information Technology Act. It is alleged that the accused are engaged in circulating printed material, E-mails etc. to malign and to defame the company name as well as board members/senior officers of complainant company and board members/officers of Tata Group of Companies and accordingly committed offences under section 34



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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 Back to top