Karnataka High Court Has Ruled That Section 78 Of The IT Act Requires An Investigation, Not Filing Of A FIR Unless It Is Conducted By An Officer of Certain Rank

August 7, 2023by Primelegal Team0

Title: Neha Rafiq Chahchadi And State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102165 OF 2019

Date of Order: 03-07-2023

CORAM: HON’BLE JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

INTRODUCTION

The Karnataka High Court has clarified that, according to Section 78 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, a Police Inspector or a higher-ranking officer is authorized to register an FIR for an offense punishable under Section 66E of the Act. However, the actual investigation must be carried out by an officer who holds the rank of Inspector of Police or higher.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner opposed the registration of the case, arguing that the offense is not cognizable. They claimed that the investigation agency should have utilized Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C instead. The petitioner contended that the Police Sub-Inspector lacked the authority to register the case, and thus sought the termination of further proceedings.

Regarding Section 66E (Punishment for violation of privacy), the court acknowledged the existence of a post on the complainant’s Instagram account that was not accessed by the complainant themselves. There was an allegation that the petitioner created a fake Instagram account in the complainant’s name and posted illegal and offensive content. The court emphasized the need for the case’s registration and investigation to uncover the truth about the incident. Since the offense under Section 66E carries a punishment of up to three years of imprisonment or a fine, or both, the court concluded that it is a cognizable offense.

Regarding Section 78 of the Act, the court clarified that there is no restriction on a police official below the rank of an Inspector of Police from registering a case. However, for the investigation, it is necessary that a person of at least the rank of an Inspector of Police or higher should conduct it.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

The court considering that no investigation has occurred due to the stay order granted in the current petition, the court concluded that the petitioner’s rights were not at risk, and there was no need for the court’s intervention under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the bench dismissed Neha Rafiq Chachad’s petition, which challenged the registration of a FIR against her for allegedly creating a fake Instagram account in the complainant’s name and sharing offensive content. The court instructed that the pending investigation should be carried out by the Inspector of the relevant Police Station.

Click here to view Judgement

Primelegal Team

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *