ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor - Ms. Monali H. Bhatt waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent-State.

2.

By way of the present application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash and set aside the FIR being C. R. No.II/366/2019 registered with Kosamba Police Station, District: Surat for the offences under Sections 72 and 84C of Information Technology Act, 2000 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Moiz K. Rafique for the applicants and learned APP Ms. Monali H. Bhatt for the respondent-

State.

4. Learned advocate for the applicants submitted that because of the unrest between the Management i.e. company and its workers, a notice for the going on strike from 27.8.2019 was given by the applicant No.1 being the leader of Union - Akhil Bhartiya Safai Majdoor Sangh. The strike was to be carried out as company was not adhering to necessary legal compliance. As the company terminated five workmen without following the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, the Union of workers requested committee’s Management for clarification regarding termination of five workers. A letter dated 29.7.2019 was also issued to the Management pursuant to the complaint regarding removal of tanks Placed outside premises of the company in lieu of peaceful strike. A letter dated 1.8.2019 came to be certified by the A.S.I., letter being the complaint of the impugned FIR. Reply was given against the said letter by Union. However, on 6.8.2019 another letter was served by the concerned ASI for removal of tanks and for calling off the strike. Applicant No.2 approached Kosamba Police Station for lodging FIR against the company on 16.9.2019, however, concerned PSO refused to lodge the complaint. Applicant No.2 submitted complaint with Police Commissioner, Surat requesting to lodge FIR under Section 374 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1) (h) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the company on oral instructions. applicants visited Kausamba Police Station to inquire about the complaint filed on 16.9.2019 under Section 114, 348, 374 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 (1) (h) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

5. It is further submitted that impugned FIR is registered against the petitioners with the sole intention of wrecking vengeance and settling scores.

6. It is further submitted that the impugned FIR implicating baseless allegation upon applicants. No offence has been made out under Section 72 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as mentioned in the impugned FIR. The applicants had went to the concerned Police Station to inquire about the FIR being registered or not to which the applicants did not given satisfactory reply and respondent No.2 registered impugned FIR against claimants.

7. Per contra, learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt has placed on record the report dated 23.9.2024 which is taken on record and submitted that without permission applicant No.3 started video recording in his mobile phone as Police Inspector restrained to record on his mobile phone, applicant No.3 continued his video recording through his mobile phone. Thus, applicants have committed an offence thereby FIR was filed.

8. I have heard learned advocate appearing for the applicants and learned APP appearing for the respondent-State.

9. It is observed that act of video recording in the Police Station is not permissible important papers and documents of other cases are lying. From the submissions as well as averments made in the memo of application, the applicants have not denied the fact of video recording done by them in the Police Station. What has been alleged by applicants is that they have not committed offence under Section 72 and 84 (C) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

10. At this stage, in a recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cas