Baswaraj v. State of Karnataka
In the High Court of Karnataka
Crl.P. 200217/2017
Before Justice B A Patil
Decided on February 17, 2017

Relevancy of the case: Quashing of FIR in a case involving offensive comments on a Facebook post.

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 43, 66)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 149, 295A)
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 196, 482)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The respondents allege that when they were browsing posts uploaded on the social networking site, Facebook, they found a group named ‘Hindu Shakti Sangam’, where a photo with a saffron flag on the Aland City Dargha was posted. A photo with a foot on the poster of the Dargha was also posted.
• It is further alleged that 7-8 persons posted comments on those photos and by doing so, they hurt the sentiments of the Muslim religion and caused social unrest in that locality.
• When the complainant checked Facebook, he found it to be true and based on the same, he registered a case under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and there was no material to constitute the offence alleged against the petitioner. Further, the concerned police have not obtained any sanction under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to prosecute the accused persons under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Also, even though Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 has been included in the charge-sheet, but no ingredients are present in the complaint or other material to constitute the offence.
• The respondent’s counsel submitted that there is material to show that the accused persons have committed the alleged offences. The charge-sheet was filed after the investigation based on the material available. The court had rightly taken cognizance and issued the summons.

Opinion of the Bench

• When the material itself is not available to indicate the commission of any act under Section 43 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, then an offence under Section 66 is also not made out.

Final Decision

• Petition allowed.
• Proceedings quashed.

This case summary has been prepared by Ria Verma, an undergraduate student at Symbiosis Law School, Noida, during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in January/February 2021.