Heard

Sri

Harshawardhan

M.Patil,

learned

counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Girija S.Hiremath,

learned

High

Court

Government

Pleader

for

respondent No.1-State and Sri Santosh B.Rawoot,

learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the

records.

2.

The present petition is filed under Section

482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer :-

"To quash the registration of the FIR

and complaint in City CEN Cr. No.21/2019

Belagavi,

for

the

offence

punishable

u/sec.66E of Information Technology Act,

2000 by the City CEN Police pending on

the file of III JMFC Belagavi.”

3.

The brief facts of the case are as under :-

A complaint came to be lodged by Shayeesta

Aga w/o Yusuf Aga with Belagavi CEN Police which

was registered in Crime No.21/2019 on 02.10.2019

- 3 -

for

the

offence

punishable

U/sec.66E

of

the

Information Technology Act, 2000.

3.1 Gist of the complaint averments reveal

that

the

petitioner

herein

has

opened

a

fake

instagram account in the name of the complainant

and posted obscene and obnoxious posts in the said

instagram account. On noticing the same, she has

lodged a complaint with the police to take action

against the petitioner.

3.2 Police

after

registering

the

case

are

investigating

the

matter.

The

petitioner

has

challenged the very registration of the case on the

ground that the offence is not cognizable and

therefore the investigation agency was required to

take recourse to Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. and so

also the Police Sub-Inspector was incompetent to

register the case and sought for quashing further

proceedings.

- 4 -

4.

Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader supports the filing of the complaint.

5.

Sri Santosh B.Rawoot, learned counsel for

the

defacto

complainant

also

supports

the

registration of the case.

6.

In view of the rival contentions of the

parties, this Court perused the material on record

meticulously.

7.

Section 66E of the Information Technology

Act, 2000 reads as under:

"66E. Punishment for violation of privacy

Whoever,

intentionally

or

knowingly

captures, publishes or transmits the image of a

private area of any person without his or her

consent,

under

circumstances

violating

the

privacy of that person, shall be punished with

imprisonment which may extend to three years

or with fine not exceeding two lakh rupees, or

with both.

Explanation:

For

the

purposes

of

this

section--

- 5 -

(a) "transmit" means to electronically send

a visual image with the intent that it be viewed

by a person or persons:

(b) "capture", with respect to an image,

means to video tape, photograph, film or

record by any means;

(c) "private area" means the naked or

undergarment

clad

genitals,

pubic

area,

buttocks or female breast;

(d) "publishes" means reproduction in the

printed

or

electronic

form

and

making

it

available for public;

(e) "under circumstances violating privacy"

means circumstances in which a person can

have a reasonable expectation that-

(i) he or she could disrobe in privacy,

without being concerned that an image of his

private area was being captured; or

(ii) any part of his or her private area

would not be visible to the public, regardless of

whether that person is in a public or private

place."

8.

The punishment contemplated for the said

offence is three years imprisonment or fine or with

both. The fact of publishing the fake and obscene

- 6 -

and obnoxious content in the fake instagram account

of the 2nd respondent defacto complainant is very

much clear from the material available on record.

Taking note of the fact that there was such post in

the instagram account which was not opened by the

2nd respondent complainant, and there is a specific

allegation that it is the petitioner who opened the

fake instagram account in the name of the 2nd

respondent

and

posted

illegal

and

obnoxious

contents in the said post, registration of the case

and investigation is very much necessary to unearth

the truth in the incident. Given the punishment

prescribed for the offence U/sec.66E, it is cognizable

in nature. The