Back
2008(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 1774
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover
Crl. Misc. Petition No.68896-M of 2006
Rajat Teneja
v.
Harmeeta Singh
{Decided on 11/03/2008}
(B) Cyber Law--Hacking with computer system--It is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who can look into the matter when a complaint is submitted to him or where the adjudicating officer refers a matter to him--//Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 66.
(C) Cyber Law--Penalties and adjudication--Certain offences shall not invite the penal consequence and shall only invite monetary, compensatory mechanism--More serious offences as enumerated under Section 65 to 67 shall invite both the penal consequences and fine--//Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 43 to 46 & 65 to 67.
(D) Cyber Law--Power of investigating officer--Contravention of any provisions of law--It is the adjudicating officer, who may:-
(i) To get the matter or report investigated from an officer of the office of Controller or CERT-IND; and
(ii) To get the matter investigated from the concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police to ascertain more facts and to see whether there is a prima facie case which requires adjudication or not.
(iii) Similarly, when the adjudicating officer is convinced that the scope of the case extends to the offence(s) under Chapter XI of the Act instead of a contravention, which needs appropriate punishment and not merely the imposition of a financial penalty, then in such an eventuality, he shall refer the matter to the Magistrate having jurisdiction--//Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 78. (Para 20)
Mahesh Grover, J.:-The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. for quashing of complaint dated 11.9.2003, 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 31.1.2005 (Annexure P2). They have also made a prayer therein for setting aside order dated 7.10.2006 (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 24.3.2002 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 27.9.2002, came to India on 24.9.2002. 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 per-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 9.11.2002 by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon.
6. The respondent filed complaint, Annexure P1, on 11.9.2003 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 1st Class, Gurgaon, to whom the complaint was entrusted, recorded the preliminary evidence of the respondent and thereafter passed order dated 31.1.2005 (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 7.10.2006 (Annexure P5) on the ground that it was not maintainable.
11. This has resulted in the filing of the present petition.
12. 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 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 9.11.2002, whereas the complaint was preferred belatedly on 11.9.2003. 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 disclose the comm
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
