The Allahabad High Court on Monday issued a direction to all the District Courts in Uttar Pradesh and to the Director-General of Police, Uttar Pradesh not to lodge FIRs under Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000.
A single-judge bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan passed this order while hearing a Petition U/S 482/378/407 filed by Harsh Kadam @ Hitendra Kumar. By means of the petition, the petitioner has assailed chargesheet dated September 2, 2019 and summoning order dated January 25, 2020 issued by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow (State Vs. Harsh Kadam) arising out of case under Section 66A of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, Police Station Naka Hindola, District Lucknow with further prayer to stay the proceedings of aforesaid criminal case.
The counsel for the petitioner contended that the FIR is misconceived in as much as the petitioner has not committed any office as alleged in the FIR, therefore, the chargesheet which has been filed under Section 66A of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, is patently unwarranted and uncalled for.
Therefore, the chargesheet in question may be quashed and the summoning order dated January 25, 2020 issued by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow may also be quashed.
Aniruddh Kumar Singh, AGA, has submitted that vires of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 has been assailed before the Apex Court in re; Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 1, whereby the Apex Court order dated March 24, 2015 has struck down Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 treating the same being violative of Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India.
The Court noted,
“Aniruddh Kumar Singh has also submitted that even in the bare Acts it has been indicated that Section 66A of the Act has been struck down by the Supreme Court order dated March 24, 2015 in re; Shreya Singhal. Therefore, as per Singh, the provision of law has been struck down by the Apex Court order dated March 24, 2015, as to how any FIR could have been lodged in the year 2019.”
“He has further submitted that when the FIR could have not been lodged under this section, as to how the chargesheet could have been filed in the same section. Further, when neither the FIR nor the chargesheet could have been filed in the case, the Magistrate should have not issued a summoning order.”
In view of the above, the Court found that the contention of Singh is absolutely correct inasmuch as and when the FIR could have not been lodged under Section 66A of the IT Act, 2008 for the reason that the provision of law has been struck down by the Apex Court on March 24, 2015, as to how the chargesheet has been filed and the summoning order has been issued.
The Court further noted that the case is a clear-cut example of non-application of mind by the Investigating Officer who has filed charge-sheet on September 2, 2019 in a particular section i.e Section 66 A of the IT Act, 2008 which has already been struck down by the Apex court in re; Shreya Singhal, on March 24, 2015 and by the court below who has taken cognizance of that charge-sheet without verifying that legal aspect which was incumbent upon him.
Therefore, the court quashed the charge sheet which has been filed against the petitioner under Section 66A of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 as well as the summoning order dated January 25, 2020 passed in the criminal case.
“The order shall be circulated to all the District Courts vis-avis shall be provided to the Director General of Police, UP so that no FIR be lodged under Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000 and in case any FIR has already been lodged after March 24, 2015 when the decision of the Apex Court in re; Shreya Singhal has come, no court to take cognizance on the charge sheet which has been filed under Section 66 A of the IT Act, 2000,”
-the Court ordered.
Also Read: