ASHWINKUMAR PANDHARI SANAP Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present application is filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing First Information Report vide Crime No.427/2024 dtd. 27/6/2024 registered with City Police Station, Hingoli, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli, which was initially registered for the offence punishable under Sec. 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [356(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita] and Sec. 66-A and 66-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (For short, "I.T. Act"). First Information Report has been lodged by respondent No.2, who is a Police Constable in his personal capacity and not as a representative of the State.

(2.) It will not be out of place to mention here that by order dtd. 19/8/2024 this Court had taken note of the fact that offence under Sec. 66-A of the I.T. Act has been registered on 27/6/2024 even when that Sec. was held unconstitutional by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India [AIR 2015 SC 1523]. It was also observed that Sec. 66-B of the I.T. Act was not applicable to the facts of the case as it provides punishment for dishonestly receiving stolen computer resource or communication device. When these both Sec. were not attracted at all; yet, the applicant came to be arrested at 00.31 hours on 6/8/2024 i.e. midnight and at the time of arrest the First Information Report was standing for the offence punishable under Sec. 66-A and 66-B of the I.T. Act, but later on when the applicant was produced before the Magistrate at about 4.50 p.m. on 6/8/2024 along with a report that Sec. 66-A and 66-B of the I.T. Act should be deleted and Sec. 67-A of the I.T. Act should be added; this Court permitted the applicant to carry out the amendment and add the Investigating Officer and Police Inspector of Hingoli Police Station by their names as party respondents. This Court also directed that in the notice to respondent Nos.2 to 4 it should be mentioned as why they should not be asked to pay the compensation to the applicant. In pursuant to the said notice the amendment has been carried out and it appears that the Police Inspector of Hingoli Police Station and the Investigating Officer is same. He appeared through Advocate Mr. S.E. Shekade and respondent No.2 is also represented by him. They have not filed any affidavit.

(3.) Heard learned Advocate Mr. B.S. Dhawale for applicant, learned APP Mr. A.R. Kale for respondent No.1 and learned Advocate Mr. S.E. Shekade for respondent Nos.2 to 4.