In a petition for quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, the court will not consider extraneous evidence or disputed assertions of consensual interaction to nullify a charge sheet; such factual defenses must be raised as an application for discharge before the trial court.

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING THAT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2015 TAKING THE COGNIZANCE ALLEGED OFFENCES AGAINST THE ABOVE PETITIONER AND TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ABOVE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.3588/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF 1ST A.C.M.M., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 66A, 67, 67A OF I.T ACT R/W SEC.500, 506, 507 OF IPC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has challenged the prosecution launched against her in C.C.No.3588/2015 pending on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 66A , 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (henceforth referred to as ‘the IT Act’) read with Sections 500, 506 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (henceforth referred to as ‘IPC’).

2. (i) The respondent No.2 lodged PCR No.6921/2013 contending that he is a Founding Director and Chief Executive Officer in Dexler Information Solutions Private Limited. The petitioner was one of the employees of the company, who was employed between 03.12.2007 and 25.01.2008, on which day she quit her employment. The respondent No.2 claimed that he had nothing to do with the petitioner other than a professional relationship.

(ii) He claims that on 25.01.2008, the petitioner wrote a mail to him that she had quit her employment, a copy of which was sent to another director of the company. The respondent No.2 alleged that during her short stint in the company, she did not co-ordinate with her colleagues and did not perform her duties as a dutiful employee of the company, though she was a technical writer for the company. He alleged that after the petitioner left the services of the company, she started sending offensive mails to him, which were indecent, obscene, vulgar and defamed not only him but also his company. He therefore filed O.S.No.8013/2010 against the petitioner for perpetual injunction, which was ultimately decreed and the petitioner was restrained from sending e-mails.

(iii) Despite the above, the petitioner started sending offensive e-mails from May 2010 till the date of filing the private complaint, which contained grossly offensive content, thereby causing annoyance, inconvenience to him. He claimed that the mail sent by the petitioner contained obscene messages and sexually explicit acts and videos and in some cases, she had sent offensive e-mails containing his morphed images along with the petitioner. Such e-mails were also sent to the other directors of the company with an intention to malign him and cause mental agony.

(iv) The respondent No.2 gave particulars of some e-mail from which the petitioner had sent offensive messages, which he claimed to be more than 700 in number. He also alleged that the petitioner had created more than 200 e-mail IDs, which were fake and anonymous and which were used to harass him. He also alleged that the petitioner continued to send such offensive, obscene, indecent messages to third parties including his parents and co-employees of the company, using fake and anonymous email IDs. She had also threatened to cause disrepute to him and his company.

(v) The respondent No.2 claimed that he spoke to the father of the petitioner and informed him to advise her not to send such offensive e-mails to him and his colleagues and his family members. However, her father pleaded inability to advise the petitioner. Soon after coming to know that the respondent No.2 had called her father, the petitioner started sending threatening and offensive e-mail o