Microsoft India (P) Ltd vs State & Anr
2012 Latest Caselaw 1863 Del

$~29
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+            CRL.M.C. 134/2012

%            Judgment delivered on: 19th March, 2012

MICROSOFT INDIA (P) LTD               ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Mr. Dinesh Mathur, Sr. Adv. with
                   Mr.Satish Tamta, Adv.

                     versus

STATE & ANR                                         ..... Respondents
                              Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for
                              State.
                              Mr. S.P.M. Tripathi, Adv. for R2.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1 Mr. Dinesh Mathur, ld. Senior Advocate has submitted that the summoning order dated 23.12.2011 issued by ld. MM is without application of mind because of the fact that neither there is any allegation against the petitioner nor his name is mentioned in the complaint not during examination of the complainant. 2 Ld. Senior Counsel has referred Para 7 of the complaint as under:-

That such content, if allowed to be hosted on these websites would seriously damage the secular fabric of India and would severely hurt the sentiment of general public following different

religions. Following are the websites which host the said objectionable content as provided to the Hon'ble Court in a sealed envelope:

1. Facebook,

2. Youtube,

3. Google,

4. Yahoo,

5. Orkut,

6. Broadreader,

7. Mylot,

8. Zombie Time,

9. Shyni Blog,

10.Blogspot,

11.Exbii.com,

12.IMC India 3 More so, in Para 11, it is further reiterated that the Main Social Networking Website are mentioned in above. Therefore, he submits there are allegations against other companies mentioned above, but no allegations or evidence against the petitioner herein. 4 He further submits that petitioner even does not have any Website, and not even any social networking, therefore, summoning against the petitioner is bad in law. 5 Mr. S.P.M. Tripathi, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 fairly conceded that there are no allegations against the petitioner in the complaint filed before the trial court. 6 Further submits that no evidence qua the petitioner has been filed by the complainant, however, submits that if in future any material is found against him, liberty may be granted to file complaint against the petitioner.

7 Keeping in view the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the summoning order dated 23.12.2011 in CC No. 136/2011 titled 'Vinay Rai V. Facebook & others' qua the petitioner is hereby quashed.

8 I here make it clear, Respondent No. 2, as prayed shall be at liberty to file a fresh complaint as permissible in Law, if any fresh cause of action is aroused against the petitioner. 9 Accordingly, instant petition is allowed.

10    No order as to costs.
Crl.M.A.491/2012(stay)
      Dismissed as infructuous.
                                                     SURESH KAIT, J


MARCH 19, 2012
j/jg