2022 Supreme(All) 133

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.
Niyaz Ahmad Khan – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Respondent
Application U/s 482 No. 28742 of 2021
Decided on : 21-02-2022

Point of Law – Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot assume such jurisdiction and put an end to the process of trial provided under the law. It is also settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner but it has to be used sparingly, only in such appropriate cases, where allegations made in First Information Report or charge-sheet and materials relied in support of same, on taking their face value and accepting in their entirety do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused.

Headnote:

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Information Technology(Amendment) Act, 2008 - Section 67 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 500 – Punishment for defamation – Saving inherent powers of High Court - Applicant has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing charge-sheet arising out of Case Crime, cognizance/summoning order and proceedings of Criminal Case, under Section 67 Information Technology(Amendment) Act, 2008 and Section 500 IPC, Police Station, District pending in court.

Findings of the Court - Court is of view that at stage of summoning accused, court below is not required to go into merit and demerit of case - Genuineness or otherwise of allegations cannot be even determined at stage of summoning accused - Appreciation of evidence is a function of trial court - This Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot assume such jurisdiction and put an end to process of trial provided under law - It is also settled by Apex Court in catena of judgments that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner but it has to be used sparingly, only in such appropriate cases, where allegations made in First Information Report or charge-sheet and materials relied in support of same, on taking their face value and accepting in their entirety do not disclose commission of any offence against accused. disputed question of facts and defence of accused cannot be taken into consideration at this pre-trial stage, which can be more appropriately gone into by trial court at appropriate stage - Court does not find this case falling in categories as recognized by Apex Court for quashing criminal proceeding of trial court at pre-trial stage - Considering facts, circumstances and nature of allegations against applicant in this case, cognizable offence is made out - At this stage, only prima facie satisfaction of Court about existence of sufficient ground to proceed in matter is required - impugned criminal proceeding under facts of this case cannot be said to be abuse of process of Court - There is no good ground to invoke inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court - Court is of view that it is beyond shadow of doubt that social media is a global platform for exchange of thoughts, opinions and ideas - Internet and social media has become an important tool through which individuals can exercise their right to freedom of expression but right to freedom of expression comes with its own set of special responsibilities and duties - It does not confer upon citizens right to speak without responsibility nor does it grant unfettered licence for every possible use of language - There is an immediate need to check exploitation of social media platforms that has political and societal reverberations that go well beyond hacked systems and stolen identities - Use of Cyberspace by some people to vent out their anger and frustration by travestying Prime Minister, Keyfigures holding highest office in country or any other individual is abhorrent and violates right to reputation of others - These kind of acts, posting and sharing unhealthy materials with unparliamentary language and remarks, etc. on social media without any solid basis cause a deleterious effect on society at large, ergo in order to protect reputation and character of individuals, it should be completely stopped - Since such incidents are on rise in a civilized society day by day and are polluting minds of people, therefore, now it is high time to evolve some more and full proof screening mechanism to regulate, check and control unhealthy posts on social media - It would be fair enough to state that such persons who are deliberately involved in such acts directly or behind curtain with oblique motive or to settle their score adopting different modus-operandi are hazardous to civilized society and they are not entitled for any sympathy in justice delivery system - High Courts are sentinels of justice with extraordinary and inherent power to ensure that rights and reputation of people are duly protected - Considering gravity and nature of offence as well as misuse of social media platforms, Court cannot shut its eyes - Government is also not expected to act as a silent spectator.

Result - Application disposed of.