Madras High Court
Kirubaharan vs The State Rep By on 28 February, 2022
CRL.O.P.No.19426 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL.O.P.No.19426 of 2018
&
CRL.M.P.No.10278 of 2018
Kirubaharan ... Petitioner
Versus
1.The State Rep by
Inspector of Police,
Vadavalli Police Station,
Coimbatore District.
2.Vengadesh ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C., to call for the entire records pursuant to the Crime No.187 of
2018 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police and quash
the same by allowing this Criminal Original Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mariappan
For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran
No.1 Additional Public Prosecutor.
Page No.1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.19426 of 2018
ORDER
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the entire
records pursuant to the Crime No.187 of 2018 pending investigation on
the file of the respondent police and quash the same.
2.This Court by an order dated 08.02.2022 passed the following
order:
“The petitioner, who is the accused in Crime
No.187 of 2018 for offence under Section 66A of
the Information Technology Act, 2000, has filed
this quash application.
2.The gist of the compliant is that the
defacto complainant is working as Assistant
Professor in Anna University, Coimbatore. The
petitioner former Ph.D student and the defacto
complainant was guide to him. The petitioner had
given a false complaint against the defacto
complainant to the authorities as though the
defacto complaint received Rs.10,29,780/- from the
petitioner by deceitful means, petitioner brought
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.19426 of 2018
Anti Social Elements to the office as well as to the
native place of defacto complainant. Further, he
threatened and blackmailed defacto complainant.
One of the committee members was also portrayed
in bad taste, abused these messages were posted in
social media.
3.The contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the Apex Court in the case of
Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of India reported in
2015 (5) SCC 1 “ had struck down Section 66A of
the Information Technology Act. He further
submits that after the judgment dated 24.03.2015,
Section 66A of I.T.Act has become non-est in law
and the respondent police registered the case
under Section 66A, which is not sustainable. He
further submits that admittedly, in this case, the
complaint was registered on 22.07.2018 in Crime
No.187 of 2018.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor
produced an alteration report dated 22.07.2018.
After the registration of FIR, the offence under
Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC included and
investigation is pending.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.19426 of 2018
5.The learned counsel for the defacto
complainant submits that from the reading of the
petitioner's complaint, offences under Sections
294(b) & 506(i) IPC is made out though the FIR
has been registered under Section 66A of I.T.Act.
After enquiry, it was altered to 294(b) & 506(i)
IPC, which are cognizable and the respondent
police is empowered to proceed with the
investigation.
6.Further, the Additional Public Prosecutor
submits that as regards the quashing of provision
66A of I.T.Act, a letter No.21021/46/2016-IS-II/M
dated 14.07.2021was received.
7. This reference causes serious doubt on
the mind of this Court whether this report could
have been made ready on 22.07.2018. Further, the
Additional Public Prosecutor to produce the copy
of the Home Ministry letter dated 14.07.2021.
8.To get clarification, the Additional Public
Prosecutor seeks small accommodation. Post the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.19426 of 2018
matter on 10.02.2022”
3.In continuation to the order dated 08.02.2022, the Additional
Public Prosecutor submits that the case has been closed as “ Mistake of
Facts” in RCS/No.M5.02.2022 dated 12.02.2022. The RCS notice has
been served to the 2nd respondent /defacto complainant and also
produced the RCS notice with the signature of the defacto complainant.
4.The learned counsel for the second respondent/defacto
complainant submits that apart from the offence under Section 66A of the
Information Technology Act, 2000, there are other materials to proceed
against the petitioner. The second respondent/defacto complainant may
be given liberty to agitate the matter in the manner known to Law and the
2nd respondent received RCS notice and he may be permitted to file his
objections as above mentioned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.19426 of 2018
5.Recording the same, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed
of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index: Yes/No 28.02.2022
Internet: Yes/No
sms/mpl
To
1.TheInspector of Police,
Vadavalli Police Station,
Coimbatore District.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court,
Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.No.19426 of 2018
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
mpl/sms
CRL.O.P.No.19426 of 2018
&
CRL.M.P.No.10278 of 2018
28.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
