Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Pat) 1027

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SANDEEP KUMAR, J.
Shiv Kumar, S/o. Late Sanjay Pandit & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors. - Opposite Parties
Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 38807 of 2020, 22001 of 2021, 43748 of 2021
Decided On : 21-02-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Pramod Kumar Verma, Mr. Sudish Kumar, Mr. Mukesh Kant.
For the Union of India : Dr. K.N. Singh, Addl. Solicitor General, Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh.
For the Income Tax : Mr. Rishi Raj.
For the R.B.I. :Mr. K.K. Jha, Senior Advocate.
For the P.N.B. : Mr. Suresh Pd. Singh, No. 1, Mr. Kumari Rashmi, Mr. Amit Prakash, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mishra.
For the State : Mr. Ajay, G.A.-5, Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP.
For the JIO : Mr. Ratnakar Pandey.
For the Airtel and Vodafone : Mr. Rajesh Ranjan.
For the Intervenor : Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, Ms. Prakritita Sharma, Mr. Manu Tripurari, Amicus Curaie.
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Binod Kumar, APP, Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath Thakur, APP.
For the I.A. No. 6 : Mr. Mayank Rukhaiyar.

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.

Headnote:
Telecommunication - Registration of F.I.R.s - Department of Telecommunication - Circular dated 23.03.2017 and 09.08.2012 - Lalita Kumari vs. State of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1
Fact of the Case:

The court directed the Department of Telecommunication to ensure registration of F.I.R.s by telecom companies and took note of non-compliance by certain police stations. It also addressed specific cases of cyber crimes and directed investigation progress reports.
Finding of the Court:

The court found non-compliance with the registration of F.I.R.s and directed the concerned authorities to take necessary actions. It also addressed specific instances of cyber crimes and directed investigation progress reports.
Issues: Non-compliance with F.I.R. registration, progress of investigation in cyber crime cases, and accountability of police stations and telecom companies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of F.I.R. registration and directed accountability for non-compliance. It also highlighted the need for progress reports in cyber crime investigations.
Final Decision: The court directed the Department of Telecommunication and telecom companies to file specific affidavits, and the concerned police stations to explain non-registration of F.I.R.s. It also directed investigation progress reports for specific cyber crime cases.

ORDER :

1. Heard the parties.

2. Office is directed to add Department of Telecommunication as a party, through Secretary, Department of Telecommunication, Government of India.

3. Heard Shri Harendra Prasad Singh, for B.S.N.L., Shri Rajesh Ranjan for Air Tel and Vodafone and Shri Ratnakar Pandey for Reliance Jio.

4. On specific query made by this Court about the registration of F.I.R.s as directed by this Court in its earlier orders with regard to sale and purchase of S.I.M.s by cyber criminals and other documents on forged documents, they submit that the telecom companies are filing F.I.R.s in the jurisdictional police station, but they are facing some difficulties in registration of F.I.R.s. in some police stations as the Officer-in-Charge of those police stations are not registering the F.I.R.s.

5. It is made clear that the Officer-in-Charge of the police stations who are not registering F.I.R.s on the complaint of the telecom companies shall be proceeded against for committing contempt of court.

6. The Advocates for the telecom companies are free to submit the details of those police stations and their Officer-in-Charge who have refused to register their cases.

7. When this Court has made a query from the telecom companies whether the direction of Department of Telecommunication (for short ‘DoT’) is being followed now in the entire country for registration of F.I.R., they are not able to answer the same and they say that they will have to seek instruction.

8. The Department of Telecommunication will come with a specific affidavit whether F.I.R.s are being registered by the telecom companies pursuant to the directions of the DoT in all the States or only in the State of Bihar.

9. Shri K.N. Singh seeks two weeks time to file the affidavit on behalf of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, through Secretary, Information and Broadcasting, Government of India and DoT.

10. Shri Harendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the B.S.N.L. submits that he has received instruction that affidavit shall be filed before the next date of hearing.

11. On the last date of hearing, it was submitted on behalf of the telecom companies that now they have stopped selling pre-activated S.I.M.s. This fact has been disputed by Mr. Amicus Shri Manu Tripurari, citing the registration of F.I.R. in Allahabad. In that case, around five hundred pre-activated S.I.M.s were recovered from the accused who was misusing those S.I.M.s and perhaps, it was being used for committing crime. So that telecom companies are to respond on this issue also as to how their S.I.M.s are still reaching the criminals.

12. The telecom companies shall file supplementary affidavits answering the Circular dated 23.03.2017 and 09.08.2012. They must out come with the specific statement as to whether these Circulars are being followed by the telecom companies or not. DoT shall also file its affidavit as to what action has been taken by DoT against the telecom companies for not following the circulars as mentioned above.

Compliance order dated 01.02.2022 by the D.G.P. (Bihar)

13. Mr. Vishwanath Prasad Sinha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Smt. Soni Srivastava, learned Advocate, has filed affidavit on behalf of the D.G.P., Bihar and has submitted that the office of the D.G.P., Bihar is taking action pursuant to the direction of this Court. He has further sought time of three months to fully comply with the order.

14. As prayed, three months time is granted for complying the order.

15. The additional affidavit by Additional D.G. (E.O.U.) shall be filed within three months.

16. Put up this matter on 18th of May, 2022 for consideration of the Additional affidavit of the Additional D.G. (E.O.U.).

17. The direction of this Court for filing the case diary and other materials of E.O.U. P.S. Case No. 30 of 2021 have been complied with and those materials are kept with the Court Master of this Court.

18. Put up this case for further consideration on 07.03.2022.

19. Mr. Mayank Rukhaiyar, Advocate has filed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document