IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Z.A.Haq, Amit B.Borkar, JJ.
Kishor - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Application (Apl) No. 573 of 2016
Decided On : 01-03-2021
Vicarious Liability - Administrator of Whatsapp Group - Indian Penal Code, Information Technology Act - 354-A(1)(iv), 509, 107, 67
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, an administrator of a Whatsapp group, was charged for offenses under sections 354-A(1)(iv), 509, 107 of the Indian Penal Code and section 67 of the Information Technology Act. The charges were based on allegations that the applicant did not take action against a group member who posted objectionable content.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that an administrator of a Whatsapp group cannot be held vicariously liable for objectionable content posted by a member, unless there is evidence of common intention or pre-arranged plan. The court found that the essential ingredients of the alleged offenses were not fulfilled in the present case.
Issues: The issues involved whether an administrator of a Whatsapp group can be held criminally liable for objectionable posts by a member, and whether the applicant's actions constituted offenses under the Indian Penal Code and Information Technology Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the legal provisions related to vicarious liability, sexual harassment, abetment, insult to modesty of a woman, and publishing/transmitting obscene material in electronic form. It concluded that the allegations did not fulfill the essential elements of the alleged offenses.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the First Information Report and charge-sheet, ruling that the continuation of proceedings against the applicant would amount to an abuse of the court's process.
JUDGMENT
AMIT B.BORKAR,J. - Heard.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
3. By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant lays challenge to charge-sheet No.26 of 2016 filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arjuni- Morgaon, District Gondia in pursuance of First Information Report No.36 of 2016, registered with the non-applicant No.1-Police Station for offences punishable under sections 354-A(1)(iv), 509 and 107 of the Indian Penal Code and section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and also proceedings bearing Regular Criminal Case No.177 of 2016.
4. The First Information Report came to be registered against the applicant and another with the accusations that the applicant (Accused No. 2) is an administrator of a Whatsapp group, that accused No.1 used filthy language against the non-applicant No.2 on the Whatsapp group of which applicant is an administrator, that despite accused No.1 using filthy language against the non-applicant No.2, the applicant had not taken any action against the accused No.1. It is alleged that the applicant being administrator had not removed nor deleted accused No.1 from the Whatsapp group. It is further alleged that the applicant had not asked accused No.1 to submit apology to the non-applicant No.2, on the contrary, the applicant expressed his helplessness. The non-applicant No.2, therefore, lodged First Information Report against the applicant and accused No.1. The Investigating Agency, after receipt of the First Information Report of the non-applicant No.2, initiated investigation, recorded statements of the non-applicant No.2 and other witnesses, seized mobile phones of the non-applicant No.2 and accused persons and forwarded it to Forensic Laboratory for further examination. The Investigating Agency, after completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Arjuni-Morgaon.
5. The applicant has therefore, filed present application challenging filing of charge-sheet and continuation of proceedings against the applicant. This Court, on 23/08/2016 issued notice to the non-applicants. The non-applicant No.1 in pursuance of notice of this Court, has filed its reply stating that there is sufficient material available against the present applicant. It is further stated that considering the allegations against the applicant, prima facie ingredients of offence alleged against the applicant are made out.
6. We have heard Mr. R.M.Daga, the learned Advocate for the applicant, Mr. T.A.Mirza, learned A. P. P. for the non-applicant No.1 and Mr.Sanjay Bramhe, the learned Advocate for the non-applicant No.2.
7. We have carefully considered the allegations in the First Information Report and material brought on record in the form of charge-sheet.
8. The crux of the issue involved is whether an administrator of Whatsapp group can be held criminally liable for objectionable post of its member for committing offences punishable under sections 354- A(1)(iv) , 509 and 107 of the Indian Penal Code and section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. To adjudicate the said issue, it is necessary to understand functioning of Whatsapp messaging service. Whatsapp is an instant messaging platform which can be used for mass- communication by opting to create a chat group. A chat group is a feature on Whatsapp which allows joint participation of members of the chat group. Group Administrators, as they are generally called, are the ones, who create the group by adding or deleting the members to the same. Every chat group has one or more group administrators, who control participation of members of the group by deleting or adding members of the group. A group administrator has limited power of removing a member of the group or adding other members of the group. Once the group is created, the functioning of the administrator and that of the members is at par with each other, except the power of adding or deleting members t
AI
An administrator of a Whatsapp group cannot be held vicariously liable for objectionable content posted by a member, and the essential elements of the alleged offenses must be fulfilled to establish ....
Whatsup group - Objectionable post – Creator or Administrator of a WhatsApp group, merely acting in that capacity, cannot be vicariously held liable for any objectionable content posted by a member o....
The necessity of prior sanction under Section 196(1) of the CrPC for cognizance of offences under Section 295A of the IPC, and the requirement of proving deliberate and malicious intent to outrage re....
Point of Law – Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot assume such jurisdiction and put an end to the process of trial provided under the law. It is also settled by the Apex Court....
The court emphasized that charges must be framed with precision, highlighting the absence of essential elements for IPC Section 354 and the need to consider dissemination under Section 354-C and IT A....
The court ruled that the accused's message did not constitute obscenity under the I.T. Act, thus quashing the charge-sheet and dismissing the case as an abuse of process.
The court established that the intention of the accused to commit the alleged acts must be evident, and the continuation of prosecution should be considered in light of the nature and gravity of the ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.