Rini Johar v. State of Madhya Pradesh
(2016) 11 SCC 703
In the Supreme Court of India
Writ Petition (Crl.) 30/2015
Before Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Shiva Kirti Singh
Decided on June 03, 2016

Relevancy of the case: Enquiry of commission of an offence under Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66A, 66D)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 34, 420)
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 41, 41A)
• The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Section 13(1)(d), 13(2))
• The Constitution of India, 1950 (Article 19(2), 21, 32)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• Respondent 8 lodged a complaint before the Cyber Cell, Bhopal alleging that Petitioner 1 along with another person has committed fraud of USD 10,500.
• They were arrested from their residence and were allegedly forced to pay Rs 5 Lakhs to the Cyber Cell, Bhopal. Thereafter, petitioners filed an application before the High Court for discharge concerning the offence under Section 66D. They were discharged by the Magistrate who opined that an offence under Section 66A is applicable in the present case.
• A Dell Company laptop and 1 Reliance Data card was seized by the CID, Bhopal as part of the preliminary enquiry. In the enquiry, it was also found that the case was of cheating between two persons in respect of the sale and purchase of goods.
• It was clarified in the enquiry that the accused were not produced before the local magistrate and were brought to Bhopal by Rail.

Prominent arguments by the Advocates

• The respondent’s counsel submitted Section 66A provides maximum imprisonment for 3 years while Section 420 IPC provides 7 years of maximum punishment. Also, an offence under Section 66A is not applicable any more as it has been struck down in its entirety in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. Hence, the only offence which remains is Section 420 IPC.

Opinion of the Bench

• There was no impersonation but certain material on record indicated the intention of the petitioners to cheat. A compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to be paid to each petitioner by the State.
• No ingredient of Section 420 IPC is attracted and civil action should be taken by the complainants.
• The bench held that no arrest should be made before verifying the genuineness of the complaint and a justified belief that the accused is complicit and needs to be arrested. The bench also referred to D K Basu v. State of West Bengal, which describes the guidelines to be followed whilst arresting an individual.

Final Decision

• Proceedings quashed. The impugned order for discharging the accused was set aside.
• Writ petition allowed. No order as to costs.

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