Uttarakhand High Court
Zuber Ali vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 14 December, 2023
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1633 of 2023
Zuber Ali .............Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ...........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner
appeared through video conferencing.
Mr. Vipul Painuli, Brief Holder for the State
Judgment
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.732 of
2023, dated 26.11.2023, under Sections 66-D of the
Information Technology Act, 2000, Police Station Kotwali
Roorkee, District Haridwar.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, a deep fake doctored
video of the informant has been prepared and the
informant has been threatened that in case, he contests
election the deep fake doctored video shall be circulated.
The FIR records that such deep fake doctored video was
sent to one Bhavna Pandey. The informant has learnt that
the deep fake doctored video has been forwarded to the
Director General of Police, Uttarakhand.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that petitioner is ready to cooperate with the
investigation, but it appears that the police may violate
the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down in
the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another,
(2014)8 SCC 273.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also
submit that, in fact, the petitioner along with Bhavna
Pandey has addressed the communication to the SSP
Haridwar raising suspicious that perhaps somebody has
conspired against the petitioner and Bhavna Pandey.
They had sought inquiry in the matter.
6. This is writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. If FIR discloses commission of
offences, generally no interference is warranted unless
there are compelling circumstances to do so.
7. There are allegations in the FIR that some deep
fake doctored video of the informant has been made and
he is being threatened at the strength of such video. The
informant seeks inquiry into it. The FIR definitely
discloses commission of offences. It will fall for scrutiny
during investigation, as to whether any such video has
ever been prepared and if so, who has done it? The truth
has to be unearth. On behalf of the petitioner, Annexure
No.4 has been referred to. In fact, by virtue of this
Annexure No.4, which is a letter addressed by the
petitioner also to SSP Haridwar, the petitioner had sought
inquiry into the video, which he had received.
8. The FIR discloses commission of offence. It
definitely requires investigation. Therefore, there is no
reason to make any interference. Accordingly, the petition
deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
9. The petition is dismissed in limine.
10. In so far as the violation of the directions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court is concerned, it is a kind of
apprehension that has been raised on behalf of the
petitioner. Undoubtedly, in umpteen numbers of cases,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down guidelines with
regard to arrest. In the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra)
also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down some
guidelines. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court is the law of land. This Court has no doubt that the
Investigating Officer in the instant case, shall follow all
the statutory provisions and directions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the investigation and on the related
issues.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
14.12.2023
Sanjay
