Sunil Bharti Mittal v. N. Naresh Kumar
ILR 2020 Kar 1867 : (2020) 2 Kant LJ 665
In the High Court of Karnataka
Cr.P. 8249/2014
Before Justice R. Devdas
Decided on December 11, 2019

Relevancy of the case: Quashing of a private complaint filed for sharing call detail records (CDR) under legal obligation

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Sections 66A. 72A)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 406, 504, 506B)
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 200, 482)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The respondent-complainant lodged a private complaint before the Magistrate, stating that he is a customer of Airtel.
• The complainant and his wife were having a family dispute. Because of this reason, there was a divorce petition pending in the Family Court. After this dispute started, he changed his mobile number.
• The complaint states that his wife colluded with the petitioners to collect his call details for a specific time frame. Due to this, he is receiving calls from anonymous numbers inquiring about his identity and whereabouts.
• He emailed the petitioners (including Airtel) about this issue. However, they have vehemently denied this allegation.
• According to the complainant, the petitioner, his service provider, gave his call details without his consent.
• In this present petition, the petitioners have approached the court to quash all proceedings against them.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The petitioner’s counsel submitted that if a police officer, during an investigation, requires call details of any person from a service provider, they are legally bound to give such information. If not, the service providers can face severe consequences for not providing the available information.

Opinion of the Bench

• When a complaint accuses a company, its directors can only be held liable if there is incriminating evidence against them along with criminal intent. For this, the court relied on the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation.
• There is no allegation of criminal intent against the petitioners. Further, there is no incriminating evidence indicating any personal motive against the complainant.

Final Decision

• The court quashed and set aside all the proceedings.

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