Dismissed

Joseline K.Jose v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Mar 2018Crl.MC/1342/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt of court matter under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Kerala High Court dismissed the petitioners' application to quash an FIR registered for internet-based offences. The court held that Section 66(D) IT Act is a cognizable offence under Section 77B, rejecting the claim that the registered charges were non-cognizable.

What did the court decide?

The application to quash the FIR is dismissed as it has no merit.

Joseline K.Jose Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1342 of 2018

¶6

MC 78/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ALUVA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2

¶8

1 JOSELIN K.JOSE, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O.K.T.JOSEPH, KOCHERY HOUSE, LUCIYA GARDENS, VKC P.O., KAILAS COLONY, THEVAKKAL, KOCHI-21.

¶9

2 ARUN K., AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.RAVEENDRAN K., KUTTAPLAVIL HOUSE, THRIKKUMARAKUDAM P.O., THRISSUR-680011.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.MANU TOM SRI.BALU TOM SRI.K.R.JITHIN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

2. RIBIN P.L., AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.LAWRENCE, PAZHAMPILLY HOUSE, VKC P.O., KAILAS COLONY, THEVAKKAL, KOCHI-21.

¶14

R1 BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S. HRITWIK

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

PBS

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 1342 of 2018 ()

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES

¶20

ANNEXURE A	COPY OF ORDER DATED 02-12-2013 IN OP.NO.2110/2011 FOR THE GRAVE CRUELTY METED OUT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE B	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20-8-2013 IN M.C.NO.78/12 PASSED BY THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ALUVA.
ANNEXURE C	COPY OF THE COMPUTER PRINTOUT OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.1113/2017 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE D	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10-11-2017 IN B.A.NO.6971/17 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE E	COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT RECEIVED FROM THE STATE POLICE COMPLIANCE AUTHORITY.
ANNEXURE F	COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT RECEIVED FROM THE KERALA VANITHA COMMISSION.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE

¶22

NIL

¶23

/TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE

¶24

PBS 21/3/2018

¶25

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶26

Crl.M.C. No. 1342 of 2018

¶27

Dated this the 20^th day of March, 2018

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶30

2.Petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 1113 of 2017 of Palarivattom Police Station registered for the offences under Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act and Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both offences are non-cognizable and the registration of the case and the subsequent investigation are illegal. The prayer in this Crl.M.C. is to quash the FIR.

¶31

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶32

4.The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners created a false Facebook account in the name of the first informant and they posted obscene messages in it. The facts clearly attract Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, which was omitted to be

¶33

..2..

¶34

Crl.M.C. No. 1342 of 2018

¶35

mentioned. But, that does not mean that there is no allegation that the petitioners have not committed the offence under Section 66(D) IT Act. It is not the Sections quoted by the police in the FIR that is relevant, but, the substance of the allegations.

¶36

5.The offence under Section 66(D) IT Act is punishable with imprisonment for three years and fine. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this is also a non-cognizable offence. I cannot agree. Section 77B IT Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Cr.P.C., the offence punishable with imprisonment of three years and above shall be cognizable and the offence punishable with imprisonment of three years shall be bailable. No interpretation is required. The offence punishable under Section 66(D) IT Act is cognizable. There is no merit in this Crl.M.C.

¶37

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed.

¶38

Sd/- K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶39

bka/20.03.2018

Joseline K.Jose v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseline K.Jose v. State of Kerala

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

Onuoha Celestine Chima Vs the State of Kerala

Hassan Kutty @ Hassan Haji Vs State of Kerala

Anandu Vs the State of Kerala

John K. Oomman Vs State of Kerala

John K. Oomman Vs State of Kerala

Chandran Vs State of Kerala