The Act provides for an adjudicating officer, not the Judicial Magistrate, to look into allegations under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and impose penalties or award compensation.

Mahesh Grover, J.

1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint dated 11.09.2003, Annexure P1, filed by respondent-Harmeeta Singh, under the provisions of Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, `the I.P.C.) and the consequent summoning order dated 31.01.2005 (Annexure P2). They have also made a prayer therein for setting aside order dated 07.10.2006 (Annexure P5) whereby their revision petition filed against the summoning order, Annexure P2, has been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon.

2. The complaint, even though preferred under Section 66 of the Act, has its genesis in a marital discord, which lurks in the background.

3. The respondent-complainant was married to petitioner No. 1 - Rajat Taneja on 24.03.2002 and thereafter, both of them lived together in the United States of America.

4. However, the marriage did not work out and the respondent, whose tourist visa was to expire on 27.09.2002, came to India on 24.09.2002. Immediately thereafter, F.I.R. No. 311 dated 21.10.2002 was lodged by her against the petitioners at Police Station, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 498-A of the I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

5. This resulted in petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 applying for pre-arrest bail before the Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. During the course of those proceedings, they produced some E-mails which had purportedly been written by the respondent to them and her husband, i.e., petitioner No. 1, in order to establish their innocence and to prove the falsity of the allegations levelled by her. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 were granted the benefit of anticipatory bail on 09.11.2002 by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon.

6. The respondent filed complaint, Annexure P1, on 11.09.2003 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, alleging that petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 had produced fabricated and false E-mails while petitioner No. 1 was specifically accused of hacking within the meaning of Section 66 of the Act.

7. It was further alleged that the petitioners had no access or knowledge about the password or E-mail account of the respondent and she had neither given consent to them to take the print-out of the E-mails nor to save the same on the hard-disc and yet, they managed to procure them by hacking.

8. With the aforesaid allegations, the respondent prayed in the complaint that the same be sent to the Station House Officer, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.

9. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon, to whom the complaint was entrusted, recorded the preliminary evidence of the respondent and thereafter passed order dated 31.01.2005 (Annexure P2) summoning the petitioners to stand trial for commission of offence under Section 66 of the Act read with Section 120-B of the I.P.C.

10. The petitioners went up in revision before the Sessions Court at Gurgaon, but the Additional Sessions Judge to whom the same was assigned for disposal, rejected their prayer vide his order dated 07.10.2006 (Annexure P5) on the ground that it was not maintainable. This has resulted in the filing of the present petition.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the primary allegations against the petitioners are that they had procured E-mails written by the respondent without her consent and without having access to her E-mail account and used the same for the purpose of getting pre-arrest bail to petitioner Nos 2 to 4. He further contended that the concession of anticipatory bail was extended to petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 on 09.11.2002, whereas the complaint was preferred belatedly on 11.09.2003. He sought to project before this Court that apart from the fact that the complaint was filed belatedly, even a reading of the same does not