Tarun Sadana v. State
In the High Court of Delhi
Crl. M.C. 5833/2019 & Crl. M.A. 40458/2019
Before Justice Suresh Kumar Kait
Decided on November 18, 2019

Relevancy of the case: Prosecuting for the same offence under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860, violates protection against double jeopardy

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 120B, 420)
• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The Economic Offences Wing Police Station registered an FIR against the petitioner under the abovementioned provisions.
• However, as the investigation progressed, the police did not file a chargesheet.
• The petitioners have filed a petition to quash the FIR. They argue that prosecution under these laws violates the legal principle of double jeopardy.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The petitioners’ counsel argued that:
  • Prosecuting them under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Information Technology Act, 2000, for the same offence constitutes double jeopardy, which is prohibited under Indian laws.
  • He relied on on Gagan Harsh Sharma v. State of Maharashtra.
• The respondent’s counsel argued that:
  • The investigation is still in progress. The police has not filed a chargesheet yet.
  • To quash an FIR at this stage will be a premature step.

Opinion of the Bench

• The court acknowledged the principle of double jeopardy, as discussed in the Gagan Harsh Sharma case. Prosecuting for the same offence under these two laws would violate the protection against double jeopardy.

Final Decision

• The court allowed the investigating agency to continue its investigation under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and other relevant provisions.