Allowed

Manju v. the State by

Karnataka HC2 Jun 2021WP/56740/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered under the now-invalid Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2008. Relying on Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the court held that the law was not in force and quashed the complaint and FIR.

What did the court decide?

The complaint lodged by Respondent No. 2 and the First Information Report in Crime No.141/2017 are quashed.

Manju Vs the State by — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.No.56740/2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.56740/2017 (GM RES)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

MANJU S/O K.SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT JIGANEHALLI VILLAGE KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT- 577 548 …PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

THE STATE BY KADUR POLICE STATION REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT BENGALURU-560 001

¶13

AJAY KUMAR WODEYAR K.N. S/O NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT HALEPET, KADUR TOWN CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT- 577 548 …RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 26.07.2017 (ANNEXURE-A) LODGED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.141/2017 DATED 27.07.2017 (ANNEXURE-B) BY RESPONDENT NO.1

¶16

W.P.No.56740/2017

¶17

¶18

POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 66A(b) OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2008 ETC.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

“Whether the registration of the first information report as per Annexure-B in Crime No.141/2017 of Kadur Police station on the basis of complaint as per Annexure-A against the petitioner is without the authority of law?” is the question involved in this case.

¶22

Respondent No.2 Ajay Kumar Wodeyar K.N filed the complaint dated 26.07.2017 (Annexure-A) before respondent No.1 police alleging that the petitioner with an intention to insult and annoy Shri Siddaramaiah, the then Hon’ble Chief Minister, on 24.07.2017 at 10.30 p.m. on his face book account has posted false information. It was further alleged that the information was posted as if obituary reference to the Hon’ble Chief Minister though he was alive.

¶23

On the basis of such complaint of respondent No.2 on 27.07.2017 respondent No.1 registered first information report in Crime No.141/2017 of Kadur Police

¶24

W.P.No.56740/2017

¶25

¶26

Station as per Annexure-B against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 66A(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2008 (‘the Act’ for short).

¶27

The petitioner is seeking quashing of the said first information report on the ground that much before registration of the first information report for such offence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India¹ has struck down Section 66A of the Act as violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

¶28

In para 124.1 of the judgment in Shreya Singhal’s case referred to supra the Hon'ble Supreme Court has struck down Section 66A of the Act as violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Despite that respondent No.1 has registered the impugned first information report against the petitioner.

¶29

Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India bars conviction of any person of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence. Article 21 of the Constitution bars

1 (2015) 5 SCC 1

W.P.No.56740/2017

depriving any person of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law .

¶34

Since Section 66A of the Act was not at all in

¶35

force in view of the striking down of the same in Shreya Singhal’s case referred to supra , registration of the impugned first information report on the basis of the impugned complaint is clearly without the authority of law. Therefore the petition is allowed.

¶36

The complaint (Annexure-A) and the first information report (Annexure-B) in Crime No.141/2017 of Kadur Police Station are hereby quashed.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

KSR

Manju v. the State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju v. the State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Savio Pereira Vs State of Karnataka

Jamsheer Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Jagadeesh N Vs State by Devanahalli Police Station

D.R.Reddy @ Dorairaj Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Shivaji Handa Vs Dheeraj Gera

Sri Shesha Krishna Vs Smt M v Savithri I.A.S