Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 3012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS (MADURAI BENCH)
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
K. Divya - Appellant
Versus
Inspector of Police, Othakadai and Ors. - Respondents
Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 10701 of 2017 and Crl. M.P. (MD) No. 7337 of 2017
Decided On : 20-09-2019
For the Appellant :Anto Prince for T. Lajapathi Roy, Advocates.
For the Respondents:M. Chandrasekar, Additional Public Prosecutor and A. Kannan, Advocate.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Section 153(A) and 505 (1)(b) – Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Imprisonment for life - Mission of creating awareness – First Information Report - Second respondent who claims himself to be an advocate and also an office bearer of a political outfit called has given a complaint to first respondent police to effect that he saw documentary taken by petitioner in you-tube and documentary proceeds as if this work is done by a particular community - By projecting this work to be performed by persons belonging only to this community second respondent alleges that petitioner has taken documentary with malaise intention and has thereby defamed and brought a very bad name to concerned community - As a result of this documentary petitioner is attempting to create a caste conflict and promoting enmity and thereby is disturbing public tranquility - This complaint was received by first respondent police and an FIR came to be registered by first respondent police against petitioner for an offence under Section 153(A) and 505 (1)(b) of IPC r/w 66F of Information Technology Act, 2000 – Held, Knowingly or intentionally penetrates or accesses a computer resource without authorization or exceeding authorized access and by means of such conduct obtains access to information data or computer database that is restricted for reasons for security of the State or foreign relations or any restricted information data or computer database with reasons to believe that such information data or computer database so obtained may be used to cause or likely to cause injury to interests of sovereignty and integrity of India security of State friendly relations with foreign States public order decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court defamation or incitement to an offence or to advantage of any foreign nation group of individuals or otherwise commits offence of cyber terrorism - Whoever commits or conspires to commit cyber terrorism shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to imprisonment for life - Above provision deals with a punishment for cyber terrorism - In order to commit cyber terrorism it must be shown that act must be done to threaten unity integrity security or sovereignty of India or to strike terror in the people or any section of people. The complaint given by the second respondent does not in any way attract provisions of Section 66F of Information Technology Act, 2000 - Documentary that has been produced by petitioner cannot be termed as a cyber terrorism - In considered view of this Court FIR that has been registered against petitioner is clearly an abuse of process of law which requires interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code - Complaint given by second respondent and FIR registered by police clearly amounts to interfering with fundamental right of speech and expression guaranteed to petitioner - Petition is allowed
ORDER :
N. Anand Venkatesh, J.
1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging the FIR registered in Crime No. 469 of 2017, pending before the first respondent police.
2. The petitioner is a social activist and she is involved in various social issues including abolition of manual scavenging. She has conducted field studies for that purpose and is attempting to bring out an awareness in order to completely abolish this practice of manual scavenging.
3. In pursuance of her mission of creating awareness for abolition of manual scavenging, she has taken a documentary film, namely, "Kakoos". This was also widely viewed in the you-tube.
4. The second respondent, who claims himself to be an advocate and also an office bearer of a political outfit called as "Puthiya Tamizhagam" has given a complaint to the first respondent police to the effect that he saw the documentary taken by the petitioner, in the you-tube and the documentary proceeds as if this work is done by a particular community called Thevendra Kula Vellalar. By projecting this work to be performed by persons belonging only to this community, the second respondent alleges that the petitioner has taken the documentary with malafide intention and has thereby defamed and brought a very bad name to the concerned community. As a result of this documentary, the petitioner is attempting to create a caste conflict and promoting enmity and thereby is disturbing the public tranquility. This complaint was received by the first respondent police and an FIR came to be registered by the first respondent police against the petitioner for an offence under Section 153(A) and 505 (1)(b) of IPC r/w 66F of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the complaint is taken as it is, no offence has been made out against the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that an attempt has been made by the second respondent to stifle the freedom of expression and a documentary film, which has been taken for the purpose of bringing awareness about the abolition of manual scavenging, is sought to be prevented by means of police complaint. The learned counsel submitted that the prosecution of the petitioner is a clear abuse of process of law and it requires the interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent submitted that the petitioner in the name of taking a documentary has completely defamed a particular community. The learned counsel submitted that by taking such a documentary and propagating it in the you-tube, persons, who watch the documentary belonging to this community, will be instigated and it will cause enmity between the groups and will result in disturbance to public tranquility. The learned counsel submitted that it is the duty of the petitioner to prove as to how she came to a conclusion that manual scavenging is done only by a particular community. The learned counsel concluded his arguments by submitting that the respondent police must continue to investigate this case and a time limit must be fixed for the conclusion of the investigation.
7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent police submitted that a reading of the complaint, makes out an offence in this case. He further submitted that a time limit can be fixed by this Court and the investigation will be completed and final report will be filed before the appropriate Court.
8. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.
9. The averments made in the complaint has been stated supra. The question is whether those averments will constitute an offence under Section 153(A) and 505 (1)(b) of IPC. A bare reading of Section 153 A of IPC postulates any act which promotes enmity between the groups on grounds of religion and race etc., or which are prejudicial to natio
