Manjunath S. v. State of Karnataka

The Cyber Blog IndiaCase Summary

Manjunath S. v. State of Karnataka

Manjunath S. v. State of Karnataka
In the High Court of Karnataka
Cri. P. 8139/2019
Before Justice B.A. Patil
Decided on January 3, 2020

Relevancy of the case: Quashing of proceedings for an offence under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Statutes and Provisions Involved

  • The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66)
  • The Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (Section 78(VI))
  • The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 155(2), 482)

Relevant Facts of the Case

  • The police received credible information that some people were having a conversation on the phone, vis-à-vis defrauding the public by conducting cricket betting.
  • A raid was conducted, during which one of the accused was arrested and the others ran away.
  • The arrested accused was interrogated and he gave up the names of several other accused, who were charged under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

  • The petitioner’s counsel submitted that a false case has been registered by the police/respondents. Further, proceedings initiated under Section 78(VI) of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 violated the provisions of Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as no prior sanction was obtained from the Magistrate before initiating the proceedings.
  • The respondent’s counsel submitted that the investigation has been complete and a charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner. There can be no contention that there is no case against him. Further, the petitioner is a habitual offender and is involved in many other cases.

Opinion of the Bench

  • The only allegation against the petitioner in the charge sheet is under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, a non-cognizable offence. Police were not allowed to investigate a case under the same, without prior sanction of the magistrate, which in this case was absent. This was an abuse of the process of the law and all proceedings thereafter are illegal.

Final Decision

  • Petition allowed.
  • Proceedings quashed.

This case summary has been prepared by Akshita Rohatgi, an undergraduate student at University School of Law and Legal Studies, New Delhi, during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in January/February 2021.