Ravari Kirankumar v. Home Department

Yoshita PhaphatCase Summary

Quashing of FIR in a case involving sending emails with objectionable content

Ravari Kirankumar v. Home Department
In the High Court of Bombay
Crl. App. (Apl) 771/ 2020
Before Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Pushpa V. Ganediwala
Decided on November 18, 2021

Relevancy of the case: Quashing of FIR in a case involving sending emails with objectionable content

Statutes and Provisions Involved

  • The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66A, 66C, 67)
  • The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 482)

Relevant Facts of the Case

  • The FIR contents allege that the applicant committed offences under Sections 66A and 66C of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
  • The applicant had sent an email with objectionable content to officials.
  • During the pendency of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as ultra vires and unconstitutional.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

  • The applicant’s counsel submits that further action of making a case under Section 67 is impermissible in law. Thus, they express no opinion on such rival contentions.
  • The public prosecutor argued against entertaining the present application, citing that they had applied for discharge. He proved his point by citing a judgment by the apex court, which defined that the High Court has the jurisdiction to exercise the power of quashing a criminal proceeding under Section 482 of the CrPC, even when the application for discharge of the accused is pending before the Trial Court.
  • The public prosecutor submitted that at the stage of framing of charge, the trial court can always vary the provisions and frame charges accordingly. Lastly, he submits that the FIR. and consequent charge sheet may not be quashed as it might make a case under Section 67.

Opinion of the Bench

  • When the concerned court passed the order in question, Section 66A was a valid law. However, the court clarified that it would not interfere at this stage. It would limit the scope for determining whether it is a fit case for quashing the FIR and charge sheet for the same reason.
  • The court read and analysed the complaint, FIR and charge sheet. Nevertheless, the bench did not find any allegations supporting the commission of an offence under Section 66C.
  • The Investigating Authorities are open to taking action under Section 67 if the event arises.

Final Decision

  • The bench quashed the impugned FIR and charge sheet.