[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Pravin Shyamrao Samarth vs State Of Mah., Thr. Pso Ps Sadar Nagpur on 8 April, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:5513-DB
37 apl 792.19.odt..odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 792 OF 2019
1. Pravin Shyamrao Samarth
Aged:- Major, Occ.: Service, APPLICANT
R/o Metro House, Anand Nagar,
Civil Lines, Nagpur
// V E R S U S //
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer, NON-APPLICANTS
Police Station, Sadar
2. Shri Ashish Kumar Tribhuvan Sanghi
Aged 44 years, Occ.: Additional
Chief Project Manager, Telecom,
R/o 28/02, Metro House, Anand,
Nagar, Civil Lines, Nagpur
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Nikhil Joshi, APP for non-applicant No.1/State.
Mr. G.A. Kunte, Advocate for non-applicant No.2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:- 02.04.2026
JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED ON:-08.04.2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. ADMIT. Taken up for final disposal with the consent
of learned counsel for the parties.
37 apl 792.19.odt..odt
3. The present application is preferred by the applicant
for quashing of the First Information Report in connection with
crime No.305/2019 registered with the non-applicant No.1-Police
Station Sadar, District Nagpur City under Section 66 B of the
Information Technology Act, 2000 and under Section 3(1)(c) of
the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and consequent proceeding arising
out of the same bearing Charge-sheet No.246/2020.
4. Crime is registered on the basis of the report lodged
by non-applicant No.2- Ashish Kumar Tribhuvan Sanghi on an
allegation that present applicant namely Pravin Shyamrao
Samarth was working as Assistant Manager for the period of
three years. The work assigned to him was to connect the
conference calls between Managing Director and other Directors
via intercom system which was in the control room. The calls were
connected as stated earlier between Managing Director and other
Directors. On 09.07.2019 the Director (Finance ) received a audio
recording clip in which conversation of one Mr. Brijesh Dixit and
other Project Director Shri Mahesh Kumar was recorded. On
hearing the said audio clip, the authorities called upon present
applicant as well as one Lokesh Gahane and made enquiries with
37 apl 792.19.odt..odt
them. At the relevant time, said application disclosed that on the
request of Mr. Vishwaranjan Beora who is having some inter
departmental disputes had asked the present applicant to record
the said call and on his instruction, he has recorded the said calls.
His mobile phone was verified and audio clips were found in his
mobile phone between him and Mr. Beora. On the basis of the said
FIR the crime came to be registered.
5. After registration of the crime Investigating Officer
has recorded the relevant statements of the witnesses. Seized
mobile phones which are sent for the analysis and after
completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet against the
present applicant.
6. Heard Mr. S.P. Bhandarkar, learned counsel for the
applicant who submitted that applicant is an employee of
Maharashtra Metro Corporation Limited. As per the allegation he
recorded the conference call and shared the same information
with Vishwaranjan Beora who is working in different department.
The call which was recorded was viral and during inquiry it
reveals that said call was recorded by the present applicant. He
submitted that even accepting the allegation the said conference
37 apl 792.19.odt..odt
call was opened to all. Anybody can hear that call and therefore,
there is nothing wrong committed by the present applicant. He
submitted that offence under Section 66(B) itself is not made out
which deals with punishment for dishonestly receiving stolen
computer resource or communication device. He submitted that
there is no allegation that present applicant retains any stolen
computer resource or communication device and therefore, the
offence under Section 66(B) of the Information Technology Act,
2000 is not made out. He further submitted that at the most, it
would be misconduct on his part for which he has already
punished by suspending his services. He invited my attention
towards the entire investigation papers and submitted that from
none of the statement it reveals that present applicant has shared
the information with somebody else which would cause the loss to
the company or it would affect the sovereignty and integrity of
the country. Therefore, the offence under Section 3 of the Official
Secrets Act is also not made out.
7. In support of his contentions he placed reliance on
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vineet
Kumar and ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in
37 apl 792.19.odt..odt
(2017) 13 SCC 369, Aditya Mehta vs. The State of Maharashtra
and another in Criminal Application No.224/2016 decided on
16.10.2020, Ramesh Rajagopal vs. Devi Polymers Private Limited
reported in (2016) 6 SCC 310 and Zishan Mukhtar Hussain
Siddiqui vs. The State of Maharashtra in Criminal Writ Petition
No.3894/2022 decided on 28.11.2022.
8. Per contra, learned APP and learned counsel for the
non-applicant No.2 strongly opposed the said contention and
submitted that from the recitals of the FIR itself apparently clear
that work of the present applicant was connecting conference call.
However, he has recorded conference call on his mobile and
transferred it to some other person. The said clips are under the
process of recovering and investigation is already completed.
During investigation it reveals that Investigating Officer, Crime
Branch has seized the mobile phone of the applicant/accused and
sent it for analysis. The audio clip as mentioned in the complaint
was transferred in compact disk and chemical analysis report has
also been received by the prosecution. The said report discloses
the involvement of the present applicant in the alleged offence. In
view of that, the application deserves to be rejected.
37 apl 792.19.odt..odt
9. On hearing both the sides and on perusal of the
investigation paper it is not in dispute that present applicant was
the employee of the Maharashtra Metro Corporation. He was
assigned with the duty of connecting the conference call.
Accordingly, on the day of incident, he has connected the call
between Brijesh Dixit and other Project Director Shri Mahesh
Kumar. The said conference call was recorded by the present
applicant and said information was shared by him with one
Vishwaranjan Beora who is working in another department.
During investigation mobile phones of the present applicant and
other co-accused Vishwaranjan Beora were seized. The analysis
report which is filed on record shows that Analyst of Cyber
Forensic Expert, Nagpur found call recording between Mr. Pravin
Samarth and Mr. Vishwaranjan Beora. It was also found voice
recording recorded by Mr. Pravin Samrath which had conference
calls between the Metro Officials. The Analyst also found that call
Logs between " Mr. Vishwaranjan Beora and Mr. Pravin Samarth,"
"Mr. Prashant Pawar and Mr. Praveen Samarth", "Mr. Swami and
Mr. Praveen Samarth". Similarly, in mobile phone of Beora he
found call logs between Mr. Prashant Pawar and Mr. Vishwaranjan
37 apl 792.19.odt..odt
Beora and Mr. Swami and Mr. Vishwaranjan Beora. Some SMS
also found sent by Mr. Swami to Mr. Vishwaranjan Beora.
10. The Cyber Forensic Expert Report further shows that
he has collected the Laptop and Desktop Hard drive from Mr. Anil
Taksande then he performed the imaging of the Hard Drives with
Cyber Forensic Software FTK Image (the imaging process is
accomplished according to the cyber forensic investigation
procedure which says "that the investigation should be performed
on the imaged copy of evidence"). After the imaging process he
investigated by following the process of the Hard drives using
Cyber Forensic Tool OS Forensics and noted his observations. His
observations are as follows:-
A) In Desktop Hard drive.
During the analysis of the USB Logs, he found that
number of External devices were connected to the official PC of
Mr. Vishwaranjan Beora, which shows that he may have been
using these external devices to transfer the official data for his
personal use. (Refer Annexure-1- in Pendrive).
During the analysis of the Browsing History log,
(Refer Annexure-2 in Pendrive) -he found that some documents
37 apl 792.19.odt..odt
(Maha Metro Complaint/PMO, Election Commission) were sent
through the Email of Mr. Vishwaranjan Beura. He found that Mr
Vishwaranajn Beura used to open his Whatsapp in Desk top
through web.whatsapp.com and had downloaded some
documents (Prime Minister.docx) through WhatsApp.
11. During the Analysis he also found some Documents
(Refer Annexure- 3 in Pendrive) which has- A letter written by
Mr.Vishwaranjan Beura to the Honorable President of India having
Subject "Violation of Model Code of Conduct by Maharashtra
Metro Rail Corporation Ltd during Central Election 2019.
12. A Letter written by Mr.Vishwaranjan Beura to Shri
Sunil Arora, Chief Election Commissioner having Subject
"Violation of Model Code of Conduct by Maharashtra Metro Rail
Corporation Ltd. During Central Election 2019" (These document
were the same documents as released in the press conference).
13. The transaction between present applicant and said
Beora also shows that present applicant has transferred the
information as to some tender to the said Beora.
37 apl 792.19.odt..odt
14. Though learned counsel for the applicant submitted
that this information is opened to all and therefore, no offence is
committed by the present applicant. He submitted that there is no
such secret in it.
15. Learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2 was
asked to furnish on record any Rules or Manual as far as working
pattern of the employees of Maharashtra Metro Corporation is
concerned, he could not produce the same on record. He has only
produced on record the office order which shows that present
applicant was assigned with the duty to (1) maintain telephonic in
the NMRCL Premises in working order, (2) Liaison with the
service providers BSNL, Idea for NMRCL works, (3) maintain all
the files and correspondence related with Signal and
Telecommunications, (4) Execution of telecom related contracts
and works. (5) Maintenance of computers, printers and other IT
related hardware, preventive maintenance and breakdown
attention, (6) any other work related to Signaling and
Telecommunications.
16. I have perused the Maharashtra Metro Rail
Corporations Limited Rules.
37 apl 792.19.odt..odt
Rule-2 defines Applicability:-
These rules apply to all employees those in casual
employment or paid from contingencies; those who are inducted
on re-employment, consultant, retainership basis.
Rule-4. GENERAL CONDUCT OF THE EMPLOYEE.
4.1 Every employee of the Corporation shall at all times;
(a) Maintain absolute integrity to the Corporation.
(b) Maintain devotion to duty; and
(c) Do nothing which is unbecoming of a public servant.
4.2 Every employee of the Corporation holding a
Supervisory/ Executive post shall take all possible steps to
ensure integrity and devotion to duty of all employees for
the time being under his control and Authority.
Rule-5 deals with MISCONDUCT specially Rule 5.4
and 5.5 which are reproduced as under:-
5.4 Furnishing false information regarding name, age,
father's name, qualification ability or previous service or any
other matter germane to the employment at the time of
employment or during the course of employment.
37 apl 792.19.odt..odt
5.5 Acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of
the Corporation. At the same time Rule 5.17 is also material
which states that "Commission of any act which amounts
to a criminal offence involving moral turpitude."
17. As far as present matter is concerned, Rule 11 is of
utmost importance which deals with Unauthorized communication
of information:-
No employee shall, except in accordance with any
general or special order, the Corporation or in the
performance in good faith of the duties assigned to him
communicate, directly or indirectly, any official document or
any part thereof to any officer or other employee, or any
other person to whom he is not authorized to communicate
such document or information.
Similarly Rule-28 deals with ETHICAL CONDUCT. Sub rule
28(1) states that every employee of Maharashtra Metro
shall deal on behalf of the company with professionalism,
honesty and integrity, while conforming to high moral and
ethical standards. Such conduct shall be fair and
transparent and be perceived to be so by third parties.
37 apl 792.19.odt..odt
Similarly Rule- 34 deals with INTEGRITY OF DATA
FURNISHED which states that every employee of
Maharashtra Metro shall ensure, at all times, the integrity of
data on information furnished by him/her to the company.
He/she shall be entirely responsible in ensuring that the
confidentiality of all data is retained and in no circumstance
transferred to any outside person/party in the course of
normal operations without express guidelines from or, the
approval of the management.
18. In the light of the above Rules, it has to be seen
whether the applicant has committed an offence punishable
under Section 66(B) of the Information Technology Act. Section
66 deals with computer related offences which specifically states
that if any person, dishonestly or fraudulently, does any act
referred to in Section 43, shall be punishable with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which
may extend to five lakh rupees or with both.
19. Section 66(B) deals with punishment for dishonestly
receiving stolen computer resource or communication device
37 apl 792.19.odt..odt
which reads as under "whoever dishonestly receives or retains any
stolen computer resource or communication device knowing or
having reasons to believe the same to be stolen computer resource
or communication device, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to three years or
with fine which may extend to rupees one lakh or with both".
20. As Section 66 refers Section 43 of the Information
Technology Act, therefore, both Sections required to be read
conjointly. Section 43 under Chapter IX of the Information
Technology Act deals with Penalties and compensation and
adjudication.
Section 43 reproduced as under:-
"penalty and compensation for damage to computer,
computer system, etc. If any person without
permission of the owner or any other person who is
incharge of a computer, computer system or computer
network (a) accesses or secures access to such
computer, computer system or computer network [or
computer resource];
37 apl 792.19.odt..odt
(b) downloads, copies or extracts any data, computer
data base or information from such computer,
computer system or computer network including
information or data held or stored in any
removable storage medium;
(c) introduces or causes to be introduced any
computer contaminant or computer virus into any
computer, computer system or computer network;
(d) damages or causes to be damaged any computer,
computer system or computer network, data,
computer data base or any other programmes
residing in such computer, computer system or
computer network;
(e) disrupts or causes disruption of any computer,
computer system or computer network;
(f) denies or causes the denial of access to any person
authorised to access any computer, computer system
or computer network by any means;
(g) provides any assistance to any person to facilitate
access to a computer, computer system or computer
37 apl 792.19.odt..odt
network in contravention of the provisions of this
Act, rules or regulations made thereunder;
(h) charges the services availed of by a person to the
account of another person by tampering with or
manipulating any computer, computer system, or
computer network;
(i) destroys, deletes or alters any information residing
in a computer resource or diminishes its value or
utility or affects it injuriously by any means;
(j) steal, conceal, destroys or alters or causes any
person to steal, conceal, destroy or alter any
computer source code used for a computer
resource with an intention to cause damage;] [he
shall be liable to pay damages by way of
compensation to the person so affected.]
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,--
(i) "computer contaminant" means any set of computer
instructions that are designed--
(a) to modify, destroy, record, transmit
data or programme residing within a computer,
computer system or computer network; or
37 apl 792.19.odt..odt
(b) by any means to usurp the normal
operation of the computer, computer system, or
computer network;
(ii) "computer data-base" means a
representation of information, knowledge, facts,
concepts or instructions in text, image, audio, video
that are being prepared or have been prepared in a
formalised manner or have been produced by a
computer, computer system or computer network and
are intended for use in a computer, computer system
or computer network;
(iii) "computer virus" means any computer
instruction, information, data or programme that
destroys, damages, degrades or adversely affects the
performance of a computer resource or attaches itself
to another computer and operates when a programme,
data or instruction is executed or some other event
takes place in that computer resource;
(iv) "damage" means to destroy, alter, delete,
add, modify or rearrange any computer resource by
any means.
37 apl 792.19.odt..odt
[(v) "computer source code" means the listing of
programme, computer commands, design and layout
and programme analysis of computer resource in any
form.]
21. Here in the present case, specially Section 43(1)(b) is
relevant which states that if any person without permission of
the owner or any other person who is in-charge of a computer,
computer system or computer network downloads, copies or
extracts any data, computer database or information from such
computer, computer system or computer network including
information or data held or stored in any removable storage
medium is said to have committed an offence under Section 66.
22. In simple words Section 66 of the Information
Technology Act makes it crime to misuse computer or other
electronic device if he do it with dishonest intention. If any
person dishonestly or fraudulently performs any act listed in
Section 43 of the Information Technology Act, such as gaining
unauthorized access to a computer system, downloading data,
37 apl 792.19.odt..odt
introducing a virus, causing damage or denies authorized access
said to have committed a criminal offence.
23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gagan Harsh
Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2019)
Cri.L.J. 1398 in paragraph No.17 observes as follows "applying
the aforesaid principles to the facts involved in the case, perusal
of the complaint would reveal that the allegations related to the
use of the data code by the employees of the complainant
company by accessing the Code and stealing the said data by
using the computer source code. The Act of accessing or
securing access to computer/computer system or computer
network or computer resources by any person without
permission of the owner or any person who is in charge of the
computer, computer system, computer network or downloading
of any such data or information from computer in a similar
manner falls within the purview of Section 43 of the Information
Technology Act, 2000. When such Act is done dishonestly and
fraudulently it would attract the punishment under Section 66
of the Information Technology Act, such Act being held to be an
offence. The ingredients of dishonestly and fraudulently are the
37 apl 792.19.odt..odt
same which are present if the person is charged with Section
420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The offence of Section 379
in terms of technology is also covered under Section 43. Further,
as far as Section 408 is concerned which relates to criminal
breach of trust, by a clerk or servant who is entrusted in such
capacity with the property or with any dominion over property,
would also fall within the purview of Section 43 would intends
to cover any act of accessing a computer by a person without
permission of the owner or a person in charge of computer and/
or stealing of any data, computer data base or any information
from such computer or a computer system including information
or data held or stored in any removable storage medium and if
it is done with fraudulent and dishonest intention then it
amounts to an offence. The ingredients of an offence which are
attracted by invoking and applying Sections 420, 408, 379 of
the Indian Penal Code are covered by Section 66 of the
Information Technology Act, 2000 and prosecuting the
petitioners under the both Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
Information Technology Act would be a brazen violation of
protection against double jeopardy.
37 apl 792.19.odt..odt
24. It is further held that in paragraph No.28 as " in such
circumstances if the special enactment in form of the
Information Technology Act contains a special mechanism to
deal with the offences falling within the purview of Information
Technology Act, then the invocation and application of the
provisions of the Penal Code, 1860 being applicable to the same
set of facts is totally uncalled for.
25. Here in the present case, the allegation levelled
against present applicant is that he was assigned with duty as
Assistant Manager Telecom and work of the said applicant is to
connect conference call between Managing Director and other
Directors via intercom system which was in the control room. The
calls were connected as stated earlier between Managing Director
and other Directors but he has recorded the conversation between
Brijesh Dixit and other Project Director Shri Mahesh Kumar.
During investigation mobile phone of the present applicant was
seized and the analysis report shows that the call recordings
between present applicant and other co-accused Vishwaranjan
Beora was also found. It was further found that the voice
recording recorded by present applicant which had conference
37 apl 792.19.odt..odt
calls between metro officials. Thus, it reveals that present
applicant who was only assigned with the duty to connect the
conference call has not only connected but he has recorded
communication between two officials and shared the same with
one Mr. Vishwaranjan Beora. It further reveals during the
investigation that communication between the present applicant
and said Beora further discloses that the present applicant has
shared information with the said Beora. In view of the Rules which
are already referred show that it was not only a misconduct on the
part of the present applicant but it is an unauthorized
communication regarding information of the department which
was shared by the present applicant with an employee of another
department. Rule 11 of the Maharashtra Metro Rules Corporations
Limited itself shows that no employee shall, except in accordance
with any general or special order of the Corporation or in the
performance in good faith of the duties assigned to him
communicate, directly or indirectly, any official document or any
part thereof to any officer or other employee, or any other person
to whom he is not authorized to communicate such document or
information. Thus, it is not only an unethical conduct on his part
but the dishonest intention can be inferred from the circumstances
37 apl 792.19.odt..odt
that he has not only recorded said calls but also shared the said
calls with other co-accused.
26. Thus, in view of Section 43 and Section 66 of the
Information Technology Act the allegations relate to the use of
communication by the employee of the complainant company by
recording the conference call sharing without permission of the
communicators or any other person who is in-charge of the said
system and sharing it to other person falls within the purview of
Section 43 of the Information Technology Act. When such act is
done dishonestly or fraudulently it would attract the punishment
under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act. The
ingredients of dishonesty or fraudulent are the same which require
to be considered in view of Section 420 of IPC. As far as dishonest
intention is concerned, which prima-facie reveals from the fact
that he has shared the said information with the person who is
working in another department. Thus, prima-facie offence under
Section 66 read with Section 43 is made out against the present
applicant. Merely because Investigating Agency has applied wrong
section by mentioning Section 66 (B) is not sufficient to quash
FIR against the applicant.
37 apl 792.19.odt..odt
27. After going through the entire recitals of the FIR and
investigation papers the case of the present applicant would cover
under Section 43(b) of the Information Technology Act which is
punishable offence under Section 66 of the Information
Technology Act.
28. The applicant is also charged for the offence
punishable under Section 3(1) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923.
Admittedly, considering Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act which
deals with penalties for spying. In view of Section 3(1)(c) - if any
person for any purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the
State obtains, collects, records or publishes or communicates to
any other person any secret official code or pass word, or any
sketch, plan, model, article or note or other document or
information which is calculated to be or might be or is intended
to be, directly or indirectly, useful to an enemy [or which relates
to a matter the disclosure of which is likely to affect the
sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State or
friendly relations with foreign States] he shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend, where the offence is
committed in relation to any work of defence, arsenal, naval,
37 apl 792.19.odt..odt
military or air force establishment or station, mine, minefield,
factory, dockyard, camp, ship or aircraft or otherwise in relation to
the naval, military or air force affairs of Government or in relation
to any secret official code, to fourteen years and in other cases to
three years. The contents of the FIR states that the aforesaid
allegations against the present applicant, the statement of alleged
witnesses recorded during the course of investigation and made
part of charge-sheet.
29. On perusal of Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act
which provides penalties for spying. In the context of the
definition given under Section 2(8) of the Official Secrets Act of
'prohibited place'. Admittedly, the spot of incident is not
prohibited place. The said definition does not specifically include
the place i.e. office of the complainant company as a prohibited
place. Therefore, the offence under Section 3 of the Official
Secrets Act is not made out against the present applicant. The
invocation of Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act prima-facie
appears to have been invoked under the misconception. By no
stretch of imagination it can be said that recording of the said calls
as stated aforesaid be an act constituting an offence of spying.
37 apl 792.19.odt..odt
The word spying has different meaning. Section 3 of the Official
Secrets Act provides punishment for acts, prejudicial to the safety
or interests of the State; acts done affecting the sovereignty and
integrity of India and so on i.e. for the acts stipulated therein.
Prima-facie it is apparent that the Official Secrets Act applied by
the Investigating Agency is under wrong conception. Section 3
could have been invoked in the facts of the present case when
there is any apprehension due to act of the present applicant to
the sovereignty or integrity of India. In view of that, the offence
under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act is not made out.
30. The present application is preferred by the applicant
for quashing of the FIR. The legal position is well settled that
when prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the
test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted
allegations as made prima-facie established the offence. It is also
for the Court to take into consideration any special features which
appear in the particular case to consider whether it is expedient
and in the interests of justice to permit a prosecution to continue.
This is so from the basis of that the Court cannot be utilized for
any oblique purpose and when the opinion of the Court that
37 apl 792.19.odt..odt
chances of an ultimate conviction are less and therefore, no useful
purpose is likely to be served by allowing criminal prosecution to
continue, the Court may while taking into consideration special
facts of a case also quashed the proceeding even though it may be
at a preliminary stage.
31. Therefore, the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs.
Bhajanlal and others reported in 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court
Cases 335 are relevant. It reads as under:-
" (a) where the allegations made in the First Information
Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value
and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused;
(b) where the allegations in the First information
Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R.
do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the
Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the
purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;
(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support
of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence
and make out a case against the accused;
(d) where the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police
officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated
under Section 155(2) of the Code;
(e) where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the
37 apl 792.19.odt..odt
basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused;
(f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted
in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party;
(g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due
to private and personal grudge.
32. By applying the same to the facts of the present
case the application deserves to be allowed partly.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Application is allowed partly.
(ii) The First Information Report in connection with
crime No.305/2019 registered with the non-applicant No.1-Police
Station Sadar, District Nagpur City for the offence punishable
under Section 3(1)(c) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and
consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing Charge-
sheet No.246/2020 is quashed and set aside to the extent of
37 apl 792.19.odt..odt
offence punishable under Section 3(1)(c) of the Official Secrets
Act.
(iii) The prosecution would continue against the applicant
as far as offence under Sections 66 and 66(B) of the Information
Technology Act is concerned.
33. The criminal application stands disposed of in
the above said terms.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
manisha
Signed by: Mrs. Manisha Shewale
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 08/04/2026 17:51:53
