IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SANDEEP KUMAR, J.
(1.2.2022)
Cr. Misc. Nos. 38807 of 2020 with 22001, 43748 of 2021
Shiv Kumar (in 38807)
Bachan Kumar
@ Ram Bachan Kumar (in 22001)
Rinku Singh @ Deepak Kumar
@ Deepak Kumar Rinku
(in 43748) : Petitioners
Vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. : Opp. Parties
(in all)
Cyber Crimes – Abusing judiciary by uploading objectionable posts/videos – defrauding bank accounts of individuals – fraud committed by using SIM of Telecom Companies – TRAI Circular dated 9.8.2012 – clause 10 – under clause 10 to TRAI Circular dated 9.8.2012, the FIR/Complaint is required to be registered by the Telecom companies – The guideline particularly for registration of the FIR/Complaint by the Telecom Companies is not merely a procedure to be followed by them but once the FIR/Complaint is filed by a particular person with regard to a particular crime, the Police will be activated and the person using the SIMs on the basis of forged and fabricated documents can be traced and arrested – however, the Telecom companies have found a novel way of not filing FIR but by filing written complaints in the DGP Office and taking acknolwedgment of the same – the Director General of Police directed to file an affidavit as to what actions were taken on the complaints made by the Telecom Companies – Department of Telecommunication also directed to explain as to why it allowed the violation of the guidelines and allowed the Telecom companies to operate without registration of the FIR/Complaints as provided under the guidelines – Telecom Companies directed to register the FIR in the local police stations under whose jurisdiction the offences has been committed and not to file their complaints before the SP of concerned district. (Paras 40 to 43)
1989 SCC Online Mad 272 = 1991 Cr. L.J. 1037, (2015) 6 SCC 287, (2014) 2 SCC 1, (2008) 2 SCC 409—Referred.
ORDER
These matters have been heard through video conferencing because of COVID-19 pandemic.
2. Heard Dr. K.N. Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned C.G.C., for the Union of India, Sri Arvind Datar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pavit Singh Katoch, Mr. Aasish Somasi, learned Advocates, for respondent no.9-WhatsApp, LLC, Sri Gauhar Mirza and Sri Tejas Karia, learned Advocates for the respondent No.5-Instagram LLC, Sri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ajit Warrier, Mr. Varun Pathak, Smt. Ekta Sharma and Smt. Sheniza Farid, learned Advocates for respondent no.11-Meta Platforms, Inc., Sri P.N. Shahi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Apurv Harsh, Sri Sujit Kumar and Sri Prashant Bhardwaj, learned Advocates for the State Bank of India, Sri Amit Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Girish Pandey, Smt. Mamta Rani, Smt. Shrruttima Ehersa, Sri Rohan Ahuja, Sri Vatsalya Vishal and Smt. Riya Gupta, learned Advocates, for the respondent nos. 8 and 12, Youtube LLC & Google LLC., Sri Kaushal Kumar Jha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amit Prakash, learned Advocate for the Reserve Bank of India (for short “R.B.I.), Sri Ajay, G.A.-5 assisted by Sri Shailendra Kumar, Sri Binod Kumar, Sri Tarkeshwar Nath Thakur, learned APPs for the State along with Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur, Sri Bhaskar Shankar and Smt. Prakritita Sharma, learned counsel for the Intervenors, Sri S.A. Narayan, learned Senior Advocate with Sri Suresh Prasad Singh, learned Advocate for the Punjab National Bank (for short “P.N.B.”), Sri Harendra Prasad Singh, learned Advocate for the B.S.N.L., Sri Shailesh Thakur, Additional Director of Financial Intelligence Unit and Sri Vishwanath Prasad Sinha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Smt. Soni Srivastava, learned counsel for the Economic Offences Unit (for short “EOU”).
3. The Superintendents of Police Nawada, Nalanda and Sheikhpura have also joined the proceeding virtually and have been represented by Sri Ajay, G.A.-5.
4. Sri Amit Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that at page no.5 of the order dated 21.01.2022 the name of the branch of S.B.I. has wrongly been typed as “Kidwaipuri Branch” in place of “S.B.I. PBB S.K. Puri”.
5. Let the name of the branch of S.B.I. mentioned at page no.5 of the order dated 21.01.2022 be read as “S.B.I. PBB S.K. Puri” in place of “Kidwaipuri Branch”.
Matter being investigated by the E.O.U. pursuant to the order of this Court.
6. Sri Amit Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Girish Pandey, Smt. Mamta Rani, Smt. Shruttima Ehersa, Sri Rohan Ahuja, Sri Vatsalya Vishal and Smt. Riya Gupta, learned Advocates for the respondent nos. 8 and 12, Youtube LLC & Google LLC has informed this Court that they have blocked all the URLs, the details of which were shared by the E.O.U. with respondent nos. 8 and 12 namely, Youtube LLC & Google LLC. He also submits that Youtube LLC and Google LLC are fully cooperating with the E.O.U. in investigation of E.O.U. P.S. Case No.30 of 2021. He further submits that in case any further details are required by the E.O.U., the Youtube LLC and Google LLC will supply the same to the E.O.U. at the earliest, and in order to facilitate the same, he has requested that a copy thereof may be marked to him also when E.O.U. sent email to Youtube LLC and Google LLC.
7. Sri Vishwanath Prasad Sinha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Smt. Soni Srivastava, learned Advocate for the E.O.U. has submitted that henceforth Mr. Amit Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate will be forwarded all the emails which are being sent by the E.O.U. to Youtube LLC and Google LLC seeking information in connection with E.O.U. P.S. Case No. 30 of 2021.
8. At the very outset, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent no.11-Meta Platforms, Inc. submits that he wants two weeks’ time to file an affidavit on behalf of respondent no.11-
The central legal point established is the mandatory registration of F.I.R.s and the accountability of telecom companies and police stations in complying with the directives.
A Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. must direct the registration of an FIR when the complaint discloses a cognizable offence involving complex technical evidence that requires specialized polic....
The court emphasized that FIR registration is mandatory for cognizable offences, rejecting locus standi as a barrier to filing complaints.
(1) FIR – Even though FIR need not be an encyclopaedia, it must contain basic facts and allegations constituting commission of cognizable offence(s).(2) Allegation of engaging with external businesse....
The main legal point established is the mandatory registration of FIR if the information discloses a cognizable offence and the need for a preliminary inquiry in certain cases. The court emphasized t....
The accused has no right to a hearing before the registration of an FIR, and anyone can initiate criminal proceedings unless explicitly barred by law.
The High Court should not exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to direct the registration of an FIR when an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available, unless there are exceptional....
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.