The Bombay High Court criticized the Maharashtra Police for still registering cases under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, even though it was ruled unconstitutional.
The Bombay High Court canceled an FIR filed under the Information Technology Act, 2000, noting that even though Section 66-A of the Act was ruled unconstitutional, cases are still being filed under it. This shows a lack of respect for Supreme Court decisions and police overreach. The Court was reviewing a Criminal Application to dismiss an FIR that was originally filed for offenses under Section 500 of the IPC and Sections 66-A and 66-B of the I.T. Act. Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and SG Chapalgaonkar remarked that the continued registration of offenses under Section 66-A indicates police misconduct and disregard for the law established by the Supreme Court.
The Court referred to its previous order, which highlighted that an offense under Section 66-A was registered despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India. It also noted that Section 66-B did not apply to this case, as it deals with the punishment for dishonestly receiving stolen computer resources or devices. The Court stated, “It is hard to believe that the Investigating Officer would not consider which sections are being used, what the penalties are, and whether a legal arrest can be made before making an arrest. Realizing the wrong section after an arrest would be a serious mistake for an Investigating Officer, as they must follow the law at the time of arrest.”
The Court reviewed the supposed WhatsApp message and concluded that it does not constitute an offense under Section 67-A of the I.T. Act, which prohibits the electronic sharing of sexually explicit material. The Court pointed out that the First Information Report does not indicate that the message was shared in a group or sent to multiple individuals. As a result, the Court approved the Criminal Application.
Cause Title: Ashwinkumar Pandhari Sanapv. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AUG:26094-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate BS Dhawale
Respondent: APP AR Kale and Advocate SE Shekade
