The Allahabad High Court has directed the Central and Uttar Pradesh governments to immediately take appropriate steps to prevent misuse of Internet on social media platforms as it is necessary to maintain a healthy environment in society.
A single-judge bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh passed this order while hearing an application under Section 482 filed by Niyaz Ahmad Khan.
By means of the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Court for quashing the charge-sheet dated January 27, 2020, cognizance/summoning order dated July 22, 2020 and proceedings of Criminal Case under Section 67 Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 and Section 500 IPC, Police Station Mehndawal, District Sant Kabir Nagar pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar.
The facts of the case are that on November 28, 2019, opposite party no 2, Awadesh Pandey (Senior Sub Inspector), has lodged an FIR against Niyaz Ahmad Khan and two others, Anil Sharma and Akhilesh Yadav Samarthak, which has been registered as a case under Section 67 Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 and Section 500 IPC at Police Station Mehndawal, District Sant Kabir Nagar.
The Investigating Officer after investigation submitted charge-sheet on January 27, 2020 against the applicant, on which the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar took cognizance on July 22, 2020 and summoned the applicant to face trial under Section 67 Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 and Section 500 IPC. The said charge-sheet and summoning order are the subject matter of challenge in the application.
The main substratum of argument of counsel for the applicant is that during the investigation, Inspector In-charge, Police Station Dharamsinghwa, District Sant Kabir Nagar submitted a surveillance report dated January 13, 2020 mentioning that on account of nonavailability of Uniform Resource Locator (URL) of ID, it is not possible to trace the details of unknown person, who made an objectionable photo viral.
As per the prosecution case, the applicant has only shared the objectionable posts in question. Charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant without proper investigation.
Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case, therefore, aforesaid impugned charge-sheet and summoning order against the applicant is liable to be quashed.
Also read: Madhya Pradesh HC disposes of PIL for fair, impartial enquiry
Manish Goyal, Senior Advocate/ Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttar Pradesh, vehemently opposed and refuting the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant submitted that:-
Niyaz Ahmad Khan is Headmaster, at Primary School, Samogar Development Area, Sant Kabir Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
On October 17, 2017 at 21:46 hours, Anil Sharma posted a morphed photo on Facebook which showed the Prime Minister Narendra Modi shaking hands with dreaded and wanted terrorist Hafiz Saeed.
Khan shared the post on April 24, 2018 at 19:58 hours. Another post (a photograph), in the name of the supporter of Akhilesh Yadav, was posted on April 1, 2018 at 15:23 hours. This photograph was also morphed, and it showed Prime Minister Narendra Modi ji and Cabinet Minister Amit Shah Ji feeding biscuits to dogs, on whom “Aaj Tak TV”, “Zee TV” and “India TV” was written.
The act of sharing such objectionable contents (morphed photo) regarding people holding esteemed positions like that of Prime Minister or a Cabinet Minister was deliberate and is an offence under Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 500 of IPC, 1860.
Upon perusal of FIR and the allegations made therein as well as material against the applicant, as per prosecution case, the cognizable offence against the applicant is made out. The criminal proceedings against the applicant cannot be said to be abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, the application is liable to be dismissed.
The Court found that as per allegations levelled in the FIR on October 17, 2017 at 21:46 hours, a morphed photo showing Prime Minister Narendra Modi shaking hands with dreaded and wanted terrorist Hafiz Saeed was posted on Facebook in the name of Anil Sharma and said objectionable post in question was shared by the applicant Niyaz Ahmad Khan on April 24, 2018 at 19:58 hours.
Also read: Tata-Mistry case: Supreme Court agrees to hear Mistry plea against 2021 verdict
Similarly, another post (a morphed photograph), in the name of the supporter of Akhilesh Yadav, which was posted on April 1, 2018 at 15:23 hours showing Hon’ble Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Cabinet Minister Amit Shah are feeding biscuits to dogs, on whom “Aaj Tak TV”, “Zee TV” and “India TV” was written was also shared by the applicantNiyaz Ahmad Khan on April 05, 2018 at 15:54 hours on his Facebook ID.
The grounds taken in the application reveal that many of them relate to disputed questions of fact. The Court is of the view that at the stage of summoning the accused, the court below is not required to go into the merit and demerit of the case. Genuineness or otherwise of the allegations cannot be even determined at the stage of summoning the accused. The appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court.
The Court held that the Court in exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC cannot assume such jurisdiction and put an end to the process of trial provided under the law. It is also settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that the power under Section 482 CrPC at pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner but it has to be used sparingly, only in such appropriate cases, where allegations made in First Information Report or charge-sheet and the materials relied in support of same, on taking their face value and accepting in their entirety do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused. The disputed question of facts and defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at this pre-trial stage, which can be more appropriately gone into by the trial court at the appropriate stage.
“The Court does not find the case falling in the categories as recognized by the Apex Court for quashing the criminal proceeding of the trial court at pre-trial stage. Considering the facts, circumstances and nature of allegations against the applicant in this case, the cognizable offence is made out. At this stage, only prima facie satisfaction of the Court about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter is required. The criminal proceeding under the facts of the case cannot be said to be abuse of the process of the Court. There is no good ground to invoke inherent power under Section 482 CrPC by the Court. I find no illegality or material irregularity in the cognizance / summoning order dated July 22, 2020 to intervene,” the Court observed while refusing the application.
“Having examined the matter in its entirety, here it would be apposite to mention that the Court is of the view that it is beyond the shadow of doubt that social media is a global platform for exchange of thoughts, opinions and ideas. The internet and social media has become an important tool through which individuals can exercise their right to freedom of expression but the right to freedom of expression comes with its own set of special responsibilities and duties. It does not confer upon the citizens the right to speak without responsibility nor does it grant unfettered licence for every possible use of language. There is an immediate need to check the exploitation of social media platforms that have political and societal reverberations that go well beyond hacked systems and stolen identities. Use of Cyberspace by some people to vent out their anger and frustration by travestying the Prime Minister, key figures holding the highest office in the country or any other individual is abhorrent and violates the right to reputation of others. These kinds of acts, posting and sharing unhealthy materials with unparliamentary language and remarks, etc. on social media without any solid basis cause a deleterious effect on the society at large, ergo in order to protect the reputation and character of individuals, it should be completely stopped.
Since such incidents are on rise in a civilized society day by day and are polluting the minds of people, therefore, now it is high time to evolve some more and full proof screening mechanism to regulate, check and control the unhealthy posts on social media. It would be fair enough to state that such persons who are deliberately involved in such acts directly or behind the curtain with oblique motives or to settle their score adopting different modus-operandi are hazardous to the civilized society and they are not entitled for any sympathy in the justice delivery system.
High Courts are sentinels of justice with extraordinary and inherent power to ensure that rights and reputation of people are duly protected. Considering the gravity and nature of offence as well as misuse of social media platforms, the Court cannot shut its eyes. The Government is also not expected to act as a silent spectator,” the Court said.
“Accordingly, Government is directed to take appropriate remedial measures/steps in order to control and eradicate such proliferating and booming devastating menace, to stop the misuse of social media platforms and to maintain healthy atmosphere in the society, which is the most important and essential factor for a civilized society,”
-the Court ordered.