LAWS(KER)-2013-11-152

SHAJU SEBASTIAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On November 27, 2013
Shaju Sebastian Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner, who is the now shown as an accused in Crime No. 97 of 2013 of Pala Police Station, seeks to have Annexure A3 F.I.R. quashed. The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences punishable under S. 66A(b) of the Information Technology Act. The petitioner, his wife and the second respondent, who is the complainant were working in the same Primary Health Centre. On a particular day, one of the Nursing Staff fainted and there spread a rumour that it was due to the harassment of the second respondent that the incident had occurred. News item regarding the incident came in various news papers and the second respondent had conducted a press conference in which she explained the position which was also reported by the newspapers.

(2.) Subsequently she filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Kottayam accusing of objectionable material having been circulated through internet which caused inconvenience or harassment to her and her husband.

(3.) The petitioner would say that he has nothing to do with the objectionable news and he has been falsely implicated. The mere fact that the objectionable matter might have originated from the internet connection attached to telephone No. 213372, which was the phone allotted to the petitioner, does not mean that he is responsible for the news item. Moreover, it is not within his province to prevent news items being published by the newspapers. Even assuming that he had circulated the news item through internet, it does not mean that he has committed any offence. Relying on the wordings of the provision mentioned above, it is contended by the petitioner that there is no averment in the complaint that it was he who had created the objectionable reading material. In the absence of any such allegation, proceedings could not have been initiated against him. On these premises. He seeks to have the F.I.R. quashed.