Partly allowed

Shivaputra v. the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Karnataka HC14 Oct 2024CRL.P/200851/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court partly allowed a criminal petition seeking quashing of proceedings under Sections 504, 509 IPC and Sections 67A r/w 84C IT Act. Cognizance regarding IT Act charges was quashed due to lack of specific sexually explicit indicia, while proceedings under IPC were continued.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order of taking cognizance and issuance of process under Section 67A r/w Section 84C of the IT Act; proceedings under Sections 504 and 509 IPC to continue.

Shivaputra Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-K:7628 CRL.P No. 200851 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶4

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200851 OF 2024

¶9

(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SHIVAPUTRA S/O RAMAPPA SHIVASHARAN, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O JUMNAL VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586109.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. R. S. LAGALI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by SWETA KULKARNI Location: High Court Of Karnataka

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE SHO., VIJAYAPURA GOL-GUMBAZ PS, REP. BY THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI-585102.

¶17

SIDRAM BHOSAGI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: GAZETTED OFFICER (TAHSILDAR), TAHSILDAR OFFICE, VIJAYAPURA-586101.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP)

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC-K:7628 CRL.P No. 200851 of 2024

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION AND THEREBY QUASH THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ISSUE OF PROCESS DATED 13.10.2023 PASSED IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.1867/2023 (ARISING OUT OF VIJAYAPURA GOLGUMBAZ PS CRIME NO.48/2021) BY THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, COURT VIJAYAPURA, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 504, 506 IPC ALONG WITH S. 67A READ WITH S.84C OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 / State.

¶28

The petitioner is seeking quashing of order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Court, Vijayapura, taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 504, 509 of IPC and Section 67A R/w. Section 84C of IT Act and consequently,

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:7628 CRL.P No. 200851 of 2024

¶30

seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceedings initiated against him.

¶31

FIR in Crime No.48/2021 was registered at Gol-Gumbaz Police Station, Vijayapura, against the petitioner for the aforementioned offences, on a complaint lodged by Sidram Bhosagi, working as Tahsildar, Vijayapura. It is alleged that during the difficult days of covid-19 pandemic, in spite of the officials making hectic efforts to control the pandemic, petitioner posted abusive and defamatory statements/messages on his Face Book against the Deputy Commissioner, Vijayapura, District in-charge Minister and Chief Executive Officer.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Apoorva Arora vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)¹ has contended that even accepting the allegations in the FIR and complaint, no offences as alleged are made out. He contended that

¶33

the order passed by the learned Magistrate taking 1 AIRONLINE 2023 DEL 1479

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC-K:7628 CRL.P No. 200851 of 2024

¶36

cognizance of the above offences and issuing process to the petitioner is without application of mind and without considering the materials placed on record as well as the totality of circumstances of the case. It is also his contention that the petitioner would have expressed displeasure and vented his frustration as one of his close relatives had passed away during the pandemic and therefore, there was no intention on his part to commit any offence.

¶37

The learned High Court Government Pleader

¶38

has opposed the prayer for quashing contending that a plain reading of the FIR and charge sheet materials would clearly disclose the commission of the offence by the petitioner.

¶39

According to the prosecution, the petitioner posted abusive and defamatory statements on his Face Book against the Deputy Commissioner, Vijayapura, District in-charge Minister and Chief Executive Officer on their handling of covid-19 pandemic.

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:7628 CRL.P No. 200851 of 2024

¶41

7. According to the charge sheet, petitioner has

¶42

made defamatory statements and abused the above persons and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 504, 509 of IPC and Section 67A R/w. Section 84C of IT Act.

¶43

8. Section 67A of the IT Act, reads as under:

¶44

“Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form- Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form any material which contains sexually explicit act or conduct shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees and in the event of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees.”

¶45

9. The above section criminalises the publication

¶46

and transmission of sexually explicit content. Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form any material which contains sexually explicit act or conduct is said to have committed an offence punishable under Section 67A of the

¶47

IT Act. In the decision noted supra, the Hon’ble Apex

¶48

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:7628 CRL.P No. 200851 of 2024

¶49

Court held that the three expressions namely “explicit”, “act” and “conduct” are open textured and are capable of encompassing wide meaning, however the phrase may have to be seen in the context of obscenity as provided in Section 67. There could be sexually explicit act or conduct which may not be lascivious. Equally, such act or conduct might not appeal to prurient interests. Further, no offence of publication or transmission of any material in electronic form, which is obscene, lascivious, or appealing to prurient interests, and/or having the effect of tending to deprave and corrupt persons, as provide under Section 67 of the IT Act, is made out.

¶50

The statements alleged to have been made by the petitioner may be termed as defamatory. However perusal of the abusive vulgar words alleged to have been used by the petitioner does not specifically indicate that such abusive and vulgar words were used against the

¶51

persons indicated in the complaint. In the facts of the present case, Section 67A or Section 84C of IT Act are not

¶52

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:7628 CRL.P No. 200851 of 2024

¶53

attracted. However, the prayer of the petitioner for quashing of the entire proceedings at this stage cannot be accepted since there are prima-facie material, attracting the ingredients of Section 504 and 509 of IPC.

¶54

For the forgoing reasons, the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

i) The petition is partly-allowed.

¶57

ii) The order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Vijayapura, insofar as taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 67(a) R/w. Section 84(c) of IT Act is hereby quashed.

¶58

iii) The proceedings against the petitioner insofar as Section 504 and 509 of IPC shall be continued in accordance with law.

¶59

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶60

AMM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 CT:SI

Shivaputra v. the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivaputra v. the State of Karnataka and Anr.

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

Sri.B.T Jambhu Nagaraj @ B.T. Nagaraj Vs the Thasildar

Shalimar Incense Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri Nitin Kanji Shah HUF

Shalimar Incense Pvt. Ltd. Vs Smt Savitha Nithin Shah

Nagesh and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Sri.Nagamurthy and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Syed Fareeduddin Quadri and Ors. Vs the State and Anr.