Allowed

M K Mohammed @ M K Matt v. Johara

Karnataka HC9 Aug 2023WP/6119/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions were filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 665/2021 for offences under Sections 499 and 500 IPC. The petitions accused of sharing pictures and using abusive language on WhatsApp.

What did the court decide?

The petitions were allowed and the impugned proceedings in C.C. No. 665/2021 insofar as it relates to accused Nos. 1 and 2 stands quashed.

M K Mohammed @ M K Matt Vs Johara — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:28220 WP No. 6119 of 2023 C/W WP No.4535 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 6119 OF 2023 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 4535 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶8

IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6119 OF 2023: BETWEEN:

¶9

M.K. MOHAMMED @ M.K. MATT S/O K. ABBHUBAKAR SHAFFI AGED 56 YEARS ADDRESS: NEW HOUSE KUTAIL, UPPINAGADI, PUTTUR TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA-574241.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAMESH T., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

JOHARA W/O MOHAMMED SHARIF AGED 37 YEARS, AADHAR 7418 1224 9368 PRESENT ADDRESS:KOOTEL HOUSE UPPINANGADY, PUTTUR TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA-574241 PREVIOUS ADDRESS: FLAT NO.302, WEST GATE ADEENA RESIDENCY JEPPU MARKET ROAD JEPPU MORGHAN GATE JEEPU MANGALURU DAKSHINA KANNADA-575002.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:28220 WP No. 6119 of 2023 C/W WP No.4535 of 2023

¶17

(RESPONDENT SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.665/2021 (P.C.87/2019) FOR AN OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 499 AND 500 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILES OF THE JMFC (II COURT) MANGALURU AGAINST THE PETITIONER NO.1/ACCUSED2, (ANNEXURE-H) WITH ALL THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDING ARISING THERE FROM INCLUDING THE ORDER DATED 07.04.2021 (ANNEXURE-J).

¶19

IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4535 OF 2023:

¶20

BETWEEN:

¶21

K.T. PARVATHI D/O THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS ADDRESS: MAHALAKSHMI DEVASTNA RASTE AMBEDKAR NAGARA, KADUR CHIKKAMAGALURU-577548.

¶22

…PETITIONER

¶23

(BY SRI. RAMESH T., ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

JOHARA W/O MOHAMMED SHERIFF AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS ADRESS:FLAT NO.003 BROOKS FIELD, KANKANADY BENDOORWELL, MANGALORE DAKSHINA KANNADA-575002.

¶26

…RESPONDENT

¶27

(RESPONDENT SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO CALL FOR

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:28220 WP No. 6119 of 2023 C/W WP No.4535 of 2023

¶30

RECORDS AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC 665/2021 (P.C.87/2019) FOR AN OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 499 AND 500 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILES OF THE J.M.F.C (II COURT) MANGALURU AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 VIDE ANNEXURE-J.

¶31

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

Petitioners accused Nos.1 and 2 who are sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of Cr.P.C. are before this Court.

¶34

The respondent initially lodged FIR with the Jurisdictional Police Station alleging that, the accused herein shared the pictures of the complainant and the friend of her husband on Whatsapp messages and used abusive language against her husband.

¶35

The Police closed the FIR lodged by the complainant by issuing an endorsement treating it as non-cognizable offence/report. Thereafter, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the aforesaid offences.

¶36

The learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statement, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and issued summons. Taking exception of the same, these petitions are filed.

¶37

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:28220 WP No. 6119 of 2023 C/W WP No.4535 of 2023

¶38

The Respondent though served with notice has not chosen to appear in person or through her counsel.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the papers.

¶40

Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 deals with the punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form.

¶41

Section 78 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, deals with the power to investigate the offences under the Act and it specifies that a Police Officer not below the rank of Inspector shall investigate any offence under this Act.

¶42

Section 67 (c) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, deals with preservation and retention of information by intermediaries and it specifies that Intermediary shall preserve and retain such information as may be specified for such duration and in such manner and format as the Central Government may prescribe.

¶43

In the instant case, the allegation is that the accused herein shared the pictures of the complainant and a friend of her husband and used abusive language on Whatsapp messages. The complainant has not produced the data retrieved from the whatsapp massages to establish that the

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC:28220 WP No. 6119 of 2023 C/W WP No.4535 of 2023

¶45

¶46

accused herein shared the pictures of her along with the friend of her husband and used abusive language. Hence, in the absence of any material that these accused shared the pictures and used abusive language, the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law.

¶47

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i) The petitions are allowed;

¶50

ii) The Impugned proceedings in C.C.No.665/2021 on the file of the J.M.F.C. (II Court) Mangaluru, insofar it relates to accused Nos. 1 and 2 stands quashed.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

M K Mohammed @ M K Matt v. Johara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M K Mohammed @ M K Matt v. Johara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Roy Vs the Management of M/S Tech Mahindra

Mr. Prathapchand P Rathod Vs State by Sadashivanagar Police Station

M/S Eminent Corp Vs M/S Unnathi Digital Solutions LLP

Mrs Sapna Jain Vs the Home Secretary

Mr. Shashanka K B Vs Jagadish D

Appi Shedthi Vs State of Karnataka