R.SESHADRI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is filed against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Alandur, dtd. 18/4/2022 in Crl.M.P.No.1475 of 2020 in C.C.No.876 of 2020, in and by which, the prayer of the petitioner to discharge him from the case, is negatived.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that this is a case where the de-facto complainant/wife and the first accused/husband are in conflict and in the said course of family conflict between them, the present complaint is lodged on the allegation that the first accused, in this case, namely Venkateswaran, had logged into her income tax account and downloaded her returns and gained into her personal details and had even produced it before the Court as evidence. In that context, a case was registered and after investigation, now a Final Report is filed for the offence under Sec. 66 read with Sec. 43 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he is the Chartered Accountant, who was looking after the income tax filed by both the spouses. It is from the office of the petitioner/accused No.4, the first accused had accessed the income tax account and has got the details.

(3.) The case of the petitioner in the discharge application is that even as per the statements of the witnesses under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., it is clear that the petitioner, being the Chartered Accountant, his office will be working on the systems all the time, his e-mail as well as the log in account are kept logged in on the screens of the various computers/laptops in his office where his assistants and others frantically type out the details, upload the documents etc., and therefore, in the process, the petitioner/accused No.4 had no active role when the first accused/husband took advantage of the situation and accessed the information and details of the de-facto complainant. He would further submit that the statements of L.Ws.1 to 4 under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., would support the said stand.