IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 16.11.2021

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

Crl.O.P.No.19131 of 2017

and

Crl.M.P.Nos. 11612 & 11613 of 2017

I.Pravinkumar,

S/o. Ilangovan

... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Inspector of Police,

CBCID Police Station,

Police Department,

Puducherry.

(Crime No.8 of 2013)

2. C.Maran,

Inspector of Police,

Traffic Police Station (North),

Puducherry.

3. I.R.C.Mohan,

now working as Deputy Commandant,

Indian Reserve Battalion,

Police Department,

Puducherry.

... Respondents

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for entire records in

connection with the Final Report dated 06.03.2017 filed by the

1^st respondent in C.C.No.26 of 2017 on the file of Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry and quash the same.

For Petitioner :

Mr.P.Parthiban

For Respondents :

Mr.V.Balamurugane,

Addl. Public Prosectuor

(Pondy.) for R1

No appearance for R2

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

ORDER

(This case has been heard through video conference)

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash

the final report filed under Sec. 66, 66-C, 72 of Information

Technology Act, 2000 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

2. It is the case of prosecution that on 17.12.2012 at

about 19.09 hours, under the instructions of accused/A1, A2

and A3 dishonestly and fraudulently sent a false requisition

to the Nodal Officer, Aircel Cellular Limited, Chennai by

misusing the official email ID

mudps.pon@nic.in

of of

Muthaliarpet police station to furnish CDR details of the

mobile No.9423 26555 of VMC Sivakumar, the then Member of

Legislative Assembly for the period from 17.08.2012 to

20.08.2012 for the purpose of investigation in Crime No.159 of

2012 under Sec.302 I.P.C., thereby collected the unnecessary

unrelated and irrelevant information of CDR details of Mr.VMC

Sivakumar. Therefore, it is the main contention of learned

counsel appearing for petitioner that while A1 was serving as

Sub-Inspector of Police, he has arrested some of the accused.

On 19.08.2012, M.L.A. Mr.VMC Sivakumar influenced A1 to

release the accused, however, the same was not accepted by A1.

As a result, he was transferred malafidely. The same was

challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, wherein

he has specifically alleged, what has been conspired between

him and MLA in the cell phone conversation. However, the 1^st

respondent has concluded the investigation and took a stand

that no such conversation was taken place. However, he has

established that there were conversations between then MLA and

this petitioner/A1 in a personal number and call details also

perused. Thereafter, a reply statement was filed by the

respondents admitting the verbal conversation. Based on the

above, transfer order is set aside. Now, the prosecution has

been launched mainly on the ground that the petitioner,

violating the standing order, obtained CDR details of the cell

phone used by MLA, thereby committed offence under Sec. 66,

66-C, 72 of Information Technology Act, 2000.

3. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for 1^st

respondent would submit that there is a standing order issued

by the Government, which would clearly contemplates the

procedure for obtaining call details recording. It is his

contention that only the District Superintendent of Police has

been empowered to get call details on record. Violating the

same, the petitioner/accused has obtained CDR details, thereby

he has committed the offence. Hence, he prayed for dismissal

of this petition. However, the factum of transfer of A1, which

was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal has

not been disputed. Further, the allegations made in the

petition and the counter allegations before the Central

Administrative Tribunal was also not disput