Narender Kumar Singh v. The State
In the High Court of Delhi
Crl. M.C. 62/2018
Before Justice R K Gauba
Decided on August 28, 2018

Relevancy of the case: Remedy of revision under Section 397(3) of CrPC in a case involving publication/transmission of obscene content

Statutes & Provisions Involved

• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 201)
• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 65, 67)
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 173, 207, 397(3), 482)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The petitioner is facing prosecution in a criminal case registered based on a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• After compliance with the provision of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) considered the question of charge.
• By order dated 24.01.2017, she found no grounds to put the petitioner on trial on the charge for offences under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or Section 65 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
• She, however, found grounds for the charges to be framed under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the essential part whereof as revealed by the formal charge being that on certain specified dates, he had transmitted, published or sent several obscene or lascivious e-mails to the complainant by using his office computer and personal e-mail which was delivered to the complainant on her e-mail account.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

The respondent’s counsel:

• The question arose as to whether the petitioner having availed of the remedy of revision should be allowed to have recourse to the petition at hand as a substitute for virtually a second revisional challenge or scrutiny which is barred under Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Opinion of the Bench

• This Court in an almost similar fact-situation, taking note of the decisions of the Supreme Court reported as Krishnan v. Krishnaveni [(1997) 4 SCC 241], Rajinder Prasad v. Bashi [(2001) 8 SCC 522], Kailash Verma v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation [(2005) 2 SCC 571], and following similar view taken by a learned single Judge of this Court in Surender Kumar Jain v. State [ILR (2012) 3 Del 99] in absence of a special case being made out, has earlier declined to interfere by the ruling (dated 03.07.2018) in the case of Ajay Maini v. State while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Final Decision

• There are no special circumstances made out in the case at hand for the revisional court’s view to be disturbed. The petition is dismissed.

This case summary has been prepared by Mansi Vats, an undergraduate student at UPES School of Law, Dehradun, during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in June/July 2020.