Friday, May 23, 2008

Sunday, May 18, 2008

Maharashtra Times:-

http://maharashtratimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/3049760.cms
Thanx Rachit....

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Orkut-again-this-time-target-is-Sonia/252571/

Expressindia » Story

Orkut again, this time target is Sonia

Font Size -

Express news service

Posted online: Friday , December 21, 2007 at 12:00:00
Updated: Thursday , December 20, 2007 at 11:33:57
Pune, December 20 Barely a month after the Pune police blocked an Orkut community for its “objectionable and disparaging” comments on Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, a few new controversial ‘hate’ communities against Congress president Sonia Gandhi have elicited political ire, promising to keep the police on their toes.

A handful of “We hate Sonia Gandhi” communities, filled with derogatory statements about her drove agitated members of the Pune City Youth Congress to approach deputy commissioner of police (cyber, narcotics) Sunil Phulari, on Wednesday evening, demanding immediate action. Based on a complaint filed by city Youth Congress vice president Amol Bhokare, the case was referred to the Deccan police, who registered a case under Indian Penal Code section 292 pertaining to printing of obscene content and also applied section 67 of the IT Act relating to publishing of information which is obscene in electronic form.

Speaking to the media about the case, DCP Phulari described it as ‘sensitive’ as it involved a prominent national, political symbol. “The communities have defamatory and derogatory material directed at the Gandhi-Nehru family, especially directed at Sonia Gandhi and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru,” said Phulari. “The police have notified Google Corporation, Orkut’s parent website, about the communities and are currently in the process of tracing the source code of the community. They are asking Google to remove the communities.

The ‘hate’ communities comprised anti-Nehru and Gandhi postings like “All those people who hate Mr. J.Nehru, please join here” and “messages to Sonia to quit India.” “Some of our volunteers came across these sites and we approached the police urging them to act against the creators immediately. We registered a complaint and sought removal of the communities,” said former City Congress chief, Mohan Joshi. “Be it the Shivaji Maharaj case or the present one, we will protest against any material that is defamatory to our national figures. Being Gandhian in principle, we decided to complain before protesting, but we expect prompt action soon,” he added.

DCP Phulari sais an investigation was underway and the technical data had to be checked. “Moreover, websites, international search engines, ISPs were not under the direct control of the police,” he said adding that this was the third case involving Orkut, that had been registered since November 2006.

Asked if this will provoke a law and order situation, the additonal commissioner of police said police stations have been told to remain alert. “We are awaiting details from Google,” he said adding that further action will be taken on the basis of the data received.

DAILY S.B. MOTION PETITION THE MONDAY DATED 19/05/2008 CR NO 19

http://highcourt.chd.nic.in/data/2008_05_19_o_m.htm
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH
258 CRM-14989-2008 (DR)
IN CRM-M-2950-2008
(RESTORATION)
NARESH KADIAN V/S UT OF CHANDIGARH
Adv-DARSHAN SINGH BISHNOI

Thursday, April 3, 2008

110	http://highcourt.chd.nic.in/data/2008_04_04_u_m.htm URGENT S.B. MOTION PETITION THE FRIDAY DATED 04/04/2008 CR NO 19 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH CRM-14989-2008 (DR)			DARSHAN SINGH BISHNOI
	IN CRM-M-2950-2008 NARESH KADIAN V/S UT OF CHANDIGARH

Friday, March 14, 2008

METRO NOW ON THIS ISSUE

http://metronow-kadyan.blogspot.com/

Please have a look on this link

http://panjabkesri-kadyan.blogspot.com/

Monday, March 10, 2008

YOU TUBE - GOOGLE REMOVED THE VIDEO ON SMT. INDIRA GANDHI BUT THERE ARE MANY MORE AT ORKUT...

http://youtube-indiragandhi.blogspot.com/

Sunday, March 9, 2008

R a c h ! T....

I am posting a list of Objectionable communities which the saffronites create to Indulge in their Propoganda politics

You may also "report abuse" them

"I HATE INDIRA GANDHI"
http://www.orkut.com/Community.aspx?cmm=21062624

It is a community created by Khalistan separitists, It has 2935 members.

"Disrobing the Nehru Dynasty"
http://www.orkut.com/Community.aspx?cmm=21046838

It is a community created by a RSS worker, to abuse the Family and our leaders.

"I Hate Gandhi"
http://www.orkut.com/Community.aspx?cmm=14805745

It is Not just an Anti-Gandhi community but also a propoganda ploy
It has 1700 members

WE HATE GANDHI
http://www.orkut.com/Community.aspx?cmm=50095826

It is a Community started by a known BD/RSS worker

ੴ WE HATE Indera gandhi ੴ
http://www.orkut.com/Community.aspx?cmm=42019121

Extremely abusive language and a profane Community pic

I would like members to come forward and expose this hatred in media, Kudos to Nareshji for exposing it

It is extremely important for us to atleast get the major Hate communities deleted from orkut.

R a c h ! T....

List of Anti Gandhi communities on Orkut

Some more

THANX A TON EVERY BODY AS THE VULGAR VIDEO ON SMT. INDIRA GANDHI JI AT YOU TUBE HAS BEEN DELETED.

The Video clipping at YOU TUBE on Smt. Indira Gandhi Ji has been deleted by the Google but the following materials also to be deleted:-
Please have a look at these objectionable materials at Orkut:-

>http://www.orkut.com/Community.aspx?cmm=30241172,

>http://www.orkut.com/UniversalSearch.aspx?origin=box&exp=1&q=I+hate+Gandhi,

>http://www.orkut.com/UniversalSearch.aspx?q=I+hate+Gandhi&view=&lang=one&searchFor=A&pno=2,

>http://www.orkut.com/UniversalSearch.aspx?origin=box&exp=1&q=I+hate+Nehru,

>http://www.orkut.com/UniversalSearch.aspx?origin=box&exp=1&q=I+hate+Rajiv,

>http://www.orkut.com/UniversalSearch.aspx?origin=box&exp=1&q=I+hate+Mayavati,

>http://www.orkut.com/UniversalSearch.aspx?origin=box&exp=1&q=khalistan+zindabad,

>http://www.orkut.com/UniversalSearch.aspx?q=khalistan+zindabad&view=&lang=one&searchFor=A&pno=2,

>http://www.orkut.com/UniversalSearch.aspx?q=khalistan+zindabad&view=&lang=one&searchFor=A&pno=3,

>http://www.orkut.com/UniversalSearch.aspx?q=khalistan+zindabad&view=&lang=one&searchFor=A&pno=4,

>http://www.orkut.com/UniversalSearch.aspx?q=khalistan+zindabad&view=&lang=one&searchFor=A&pno=5,

>http://www.orkut.com/UniversalSearch.aspx?q=khalistan+zindabad&view=&lang=one&searchFor=A&pno=6,

>http://www.orkut.com/UniversalSearch.aspx?q=khalistan+zindabad&view=&lang=one&searchFor=A&pno=7,

>http://www.orkut.com/UniversalSearch.aspx?q=khalistan+zindabad&view=&lang=one&searchFor=A&pno=8,

>http://www.orkut.com/UniversalSearch.aspx?q=khalistan+zindabad&view=&lang=one&searchFor=A&pno=9,

>http://www.orkut.com/UniversalSearch.aspx?q=khalistan+zindabad&view=&lang=one&searchFor=A&pno=10,

>http://www.orkut.com/UniversalSearch.aspx?q=khalistan+zindabad&view=&lang=one&searchFor=A&pno=11,

>http://www.orkut.com/UniversalSearch.aspx?q=khalistan+zindabad&view=&lang=one&searchFor=A&pno=12,

>http://www.orkut.com/UniversalSearch.aspx?q=khalistan+zindabad&view=&lang=one&searchFor=A&pno=13,

>http://www.orkut.com/UniversalSearch.aspx?q=khalistan+zindabad&view=&lang=one&searchFor=A&pno=14,

>http://www.orkut.com/UniversalSearch.aspx?q=khalistan+zindabad&view=&lang=one&searchFor=A&pno=15,

>http://www.orkut.com/UniversalSearch.aspx?q=khalistan+zindabad&view=&lang=one&searchFor=A&pno=16,

>http://www.orkut.com/UniversalSearch.aspx?q=khalistan+zindabad&view=&lang=one&searchFor=A&pno=17,

>http://www.orkut.com/UniversalSearch.aspx?q=khalistan+zindabad&view=&lang=one&searchFor=A&pno=18,

>http://www.orkut.com/UniversalSearch.aspx?q=khalistan+zindabad&view=&lang=one&searchFor=A&pno=19,

>http://www.orkut.com/UniversalSearch.aspx?q=khalistan+zindabad&view=&lang=one&searchFor=A&pno=20,

>http://www.orkut.com/UniversalSearch.aspx?q=khalistan+zindabad&view=&lang=one&searchFor=A&pno=21

and soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo on.

In my opinion the above said material is objectionable as per the law of the land.

Thursday, February 28, 2008

from

"ys.dadwal"
hide details
5:02 pm (58 minutes ago)
to

Naresh Kadyan

date
Feb 28, 2008 5:02 PM

subject
Re: IMAGE SPOILING MATERIALS ON INTERNET.

Dear Citizen, Thanks for your E-mail, Your E-mail has been acknowledged by Commissioner of Police, Delhi and the same has been marked to Staff Officer to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi for further necessary action and your reference No. is 282/Email dated 29/02/2008.

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

OPEN LETTER FOR LEGAL HEIRS OF SMT. INDIRA GANDHI JI.

PLEASE DO SOMETHING FOR REMOVAL OF ALL VULGAR VIDEO's / MATERIAL AT INTERNET - YOU TUBE GOOGLE SPOILING THE IMAGE OF A BHARAT RATNA LATE PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA SMT. INDIRA GANDHI JI.

PAKISTAN LIFTED BAN ON YOU TUBE BUT IT SHOULD BE IN INDIA

http://banonyoutube.blogspot.com/

UP DATES :-

http://videoonindiragandhi.blogspot.com/

Sunday, February 24, 2008

PRINCE RAHUL GANDHI, M.P - A HOPE FOR NEW INDIA - NARESH KADYAN

PADMA SHRI AWARDS IN INDIA - SOCIAL SERVICE ACTIVIST

Saturday, February 23, 2008

FRESH STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE CYBER CRIME BRANCH ON 22-2-2008

Naresh Kadyan recorded his fresh statements on 22-2-2008 with the Cyber Crime Branch of Chandigarh Police about the vulgar video's on Smt. Indira Gandhi. He further clarified that his E-mail Id - chairmanpfaharyana@gmail.com has been hacked by some one to spoil his name.

Saturday, February 9, 2008

http://highcourt.chd.nic.in/data/2008_02_05_u_m.htm
URGENT S.B. MOTION PETITION THE TUESDAY DATED 05/02/2008 CR NO 19
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH

119	CRM-M-2950-2008 (DR)	NARESH KADIAN V/S UT OF CHANDIGARH		PETITIONER IN PERSON
	CRM-5419-2008

Removal of all vulgar video's on Smt. Indira Gandhi ji.

http://indiragandhiji.blogspot.com/

NARESH KADYAN EMAIL HACKED - SUKANYA KADYAN

IRON LADY SMT. INDIRA GANDHI IS OUR PRIDE, YOUTUBE PLEASE STOP THIS CRIME - NARESH KADYAN

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2008/20080205/cth1.htm

In a PIL, social activist Naresh Kadyan has sought directions to Google and You Tube to withdraw the videoclip on the late Indira Gandhi. The petition is expected to come up before Justice Nawab Singh of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday.

Kadian has also sought directions to the Chandigarh Police to register an FIR against Google, You Tube and others for showing the video, which was “vulgar.” Kadian will appear in person in the matter.

fromcomments@whitehouse.gov
tochairmanpfaharyana@gmail.com,

dateDec 11, 2007 6:03 AM
mailed-bywhitehouse.gov

hide details 6:03 AM (3 minutes ago) Reply

On behalf of President Bush, thank you for your correspondence.

We appreciate hearing your views and welcome your suggestions.

Due to the large volume of e-mail received, the White House cannot respond to every message.

Thank you again for taking the time to write.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2007/20071211/haryana.htm#19

FIR against ‘You Tube’ sought
Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, December 10
Convener of the Haryana unit of the People for Animals organisation Naresh Kadyan has written to the state police to lodge an FIR against “You Tube” for posting highly objectionable video against former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.

Faridabad-based Kadyan told TNS today that he had sent a complaint to the director-general of the Haryana police with a copy to the Chief Minister, urging him to take an action against the internet site under the Information Technology Act for hurting the sentiments of Indians.

He said a strict action should be taken against the offending sites and their promoters.

Friday, February 8, 2008

Subject:- FIR AGAINST THE YOU TUBE - GOOGLE & OTHERS UNDER CYEBAR CRIME , DEFAMATION OF NATIONAL ASSETS & TO DESTROY PEACE, NATIONAL UNITY etc.......... SIR, Kindly refer to the video posted at YOU TUBE - GOOGLE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCBuWPfCmL0 on August 5th., 20007 by the deconstructingindia under the terms & conditions agreed between these two parties , there are another video also spoiling the image of the Indian former Prime Minister Bharet Ratna late Smt. Indira Gandhi ji including the video as stated above at you tube. As per the provisions at YOU TUBE I flagged the said video INAPPROPRIATE but still going on with the vulgar comments & I asked the YOU TUBE to stop it through news item at CARE2.COM http://www.care2.com/news/member/374874447/564311 IRON LADY SMT. INDIRA GANDHI IS OUR PRIDE, YOUTUBE PLEASE STOP THIS CRIME - NARESH KADYAN visit site World (tags: politics, crime, freedoms, violence, world, 'PEACE!', 'CIVILLIBERTIES!', 'HUMANRIGHTS!' , government ) but the said objectionable video is still continue. There are few example also of CYEBER CRIME in the country & FIR's lodged at the Police Station, GURGAON (Haryana) & in Uttar Pardesh, a report was lodged spoiling the image of the Chief Minister Ms. Mayavati ji at ORKUT run by the GOOGLE itself, at you tube there was another vulgar video was the POLE DANCE OF GANDHI & the same was removed now after a great reaction of public, media & Govt. of India & I have taken up that matter also with the then President of India along with United States President. It would be pertinent to mention here that Smt. Indira Gandhi ji , a Bharet Rattan National assets former Prime Minister of India & the said video hurt my feelings along with others crore's of public around the world as she was the founder of a National political party & the said video destroying the public peace along with National unity & this act may be a part of terrorist activities & International conspiracy . The said video is spreading the mud & defame the image of our former Prime Minister of India, as per the position stated above this is the clear cut violation of the provisions of the law's of the land & human rights - such as INFORMATION TECHNLOGY ACT, 2000 - AMENDED IN 2006 & others as per the position stated above, hence you are requested to lodge an FIR against the operator , promoters of the said video in public interest please & direct them to stop these all anti-social materials journalism & propaganda. your's NARESH KADYAN,Convenor, International P.F.A / SPCA,cell no. 09813010595-- www.pfaharyana.in

http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd2spk8b_0gzwbd8gp
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Cr. Misc. No. _______ of 2007
In
Cr. Misc. No. _________ of 2007
Naresh Kadian
. . . . . . . Petitioner
Versus
Union Territory, Chandigarh
. . . . . . . Respondent
Application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for exemption from filing the certified and typed copy of Annexure P-1.
* * * * * * * *
RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the present Criminal Petition is being filed before this Hon’ble High Court for registration of a case under Information Technology Act, 2000.
2. That the ground of the petition may kindly be read as a part of this application.
4. That the certified copy of the Annexures P-1 is not readily available with the applicant and typed copy is not possible to type out because it contains several photographs, which cannot be typed out.
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the present application may kindly be allowed and the filing of certified copy as well as typed copy of Annexures P-1, may kindly be exempted, in the interest of justice.
Note: NO Affidavit is necessary
CHANDIGARH
DATED: 04.02.2007
(NARESH KADIAN)
Petitioner in Person
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Cr. Misc. No. _______ of 2007
In
Cr. Misc. No. _________ of 2007
Naresh Kadian, Chairman, People for Animals, Haryana (Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Haryana), 75, Km. Miles Stone, Mathura Road, Sarai Katela, Faridabad.
. . . . . . . Petitioner
Versus
Union Territory, Chandigarh through its Home Secretary
Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh
.. . . . . . Respondent
Petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for registration of a case under Information Technology Act amended in 2006 as well as other Sections of the Indian Penal Code, investigating the entire matter and for taking appropriate action against the accused in accordance with law and direction to the respondents to remove the filthy language and derogatory remarks from the "You Tube site (google)", which has been published against the former Prime Minister late Smt. Indira Gandhi.
* * * * *
RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the petitioner is a Chairman of People for Animals, Haryana and the present petitioner is working in the interest of general public.
2. That the petitioner filed a complaint before the respondent No. 2 vide Annexure P-1, where complaint has been made against you tube-google and other under the cyber crime for using the filthy/dirty language against the former Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi.
3. That the petitioner attached the complete paper book where derogatory remarks have been made against the former Prime Minister of India Smt. Indira Gandhi. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that the complete paper book attached alongwith complaint Annexure P-1 showing the violation of Information Technology Act, 2000 amended in 2006.
4. That the petitioner approached several times to the respondent No. 2 for taking appropriate action against the culprits who used such type filthy language against former Prime Minister late Smt. Indira Gandhi but the respondents are not taking any action against the you tube and google where all the materials are lying in You Tube site. Further, it is necessary to mention here that on December 10, news item has been given by the Tribune News Service, where necessary action which has been sought, has been mentioned.
5. That the Section 67 of the Information Technology Act is reproduced below for the perusal of this Hon'ble High Court :-
"67. Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to five years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and also with fine which may extend to two lakh rupees."
6. That after perusing the contents of the complaint Annexure P-1 and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, it has been proved that the material publishes and transmits in the electronic form, which is lascivious and effecting the image of the former Prime Minister, where various dirty and filthy words have been published in the electronic form on You Tube site and google is the owner of this site. The petitioner requested to the google for removing the above said filthy words and further he also made a request for taking action against the accused but no action has been taken by google as well as respondents. Hence the petitioner is filing the petitioner before this Hon'ble High Court for taking action as per law.
7. That Section 154 and 156 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 have been reproduced below for the perusal of this Hon'ble High Court:-
154. (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.
(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.
(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-Section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned, who if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence."
XX XX XX XX XX
XX XX XX XX
156(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order OF A Magistrate investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.
(2) No proceeding of a police-officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.
(3) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as above mentioned.
8. That as per the above said contents of Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is crystal clear that the respondents are bound to take appropriate action against the culprits/accused but after getting the detailed information, no action has been taken by the police. Thus, this is a clear cut violation of Section 156 of Code of Criminal Procedure as well as established law, where this Hon'ble High Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court has given direction in several cases for registering a case after getting information of cognizable offence. In the present case cognizable offence has been made by the culprits and respondents are bound to take action in accordance with law.
9. That the petitioner is a Chairman of the People for Animals, Haryana and the site of the Society has been hacked. The petitioner had made of cognizable office and respondents are bound to register a case and then enquire the entire matter. In this reference this Hon'ble High Court has already held in case titled Sukhdev Singh Versus State reported 1999 (1) RCR, Criminal, page 65 that once the complaint disclosed the commission of offence police has to register the case provided under Section 154 (4) Cr. P.C. and then investigate the same. In similar circumstances, this Hon'ble High Court held in case titled Sarvan Ram Versus State of Punjab reported 1999 (1) RCR Criminal, page 133, where similar controversy has been resolved. The Division Bench of Delhi High Court held in case titled Satish Kumar Goel Versus State reported 2001 (1) RCR Criminal, page 25, where it has been held that if complaint disclosed the commission of cognizable offence - officer incharge of Police Station is duty bound to register FIR and then investigate the matter. Further, this Hon'ble High Court held in case titled Jagtar Singh Versus State of Punjab reported 1999(2) RCR Criminal, page 134, where it has been held that police has to register FIR then investigate or enquire the matter, enquiry prior to registration of FIR, is contrary to the provision of Section 154 of Cr. P.C. The Allahabad High Court held in case titled Gulab Chand Upadhyaya Versus State of U.P. reported 2002(3) RCR, page 514, where it has been held that if the FIR has not been registered by the police then under Section 154 (3) Cr.P.C. substance of the FIR can be sent to the Superintendent of Police by post, who has the power to investigate the offence himself or depute the subordinate officer for investigation.
10. That as per the above said facts and the respondents are bound to take appropriate action as per law against the accused.
11. That no such or similar petition has been filed either before this Hon'ble High Court or before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances of the present case, the respondents may be given direction for registering a case against the accused and then respondents may be given direction to investigate the entire matter and take appropriate action as per law.
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed and the Criminal case may be registered under Information Technology Act, 2000 amended in 2006 as well as other Sections of the Indian Penal Code and then investigate the entire matter and take appropriate action against the accused in accordance with law. It is further requested that direction may be given to respondents to remove the filthy language and derogatory remarks from the You Tube site (google), which has been published against the former Prime Minister late Smt. Indira Gandhi.
Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper may be granted in favour of the petitioner, keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case
CHANDIGARH
DATED: 04.02.2007
(NARESH KADIAN)
Petitioner in Person
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Cr. Misc. No. _______ of 2007
In
Cr. Misc. No. _________ of 2007
Naresh Kadian
. . . . . . . Petitioner
Versus
Union Territory, Chandigarh
. . . . . . . Respondent
I N D E X
Sr. No.
Particulars
Date
Page
1.
Application for exemption
04.02.2008
1 - 2
2.
Petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for registration of a case under Information Technology Act
04.02.2008
3 - 12
3.
Annexure P-1 (Complaint with paper book alongwith receipt)
16.1.2008
13 - 33
4.
Power of Attorney
04.02.2008
34
CHANDIGARH
DATED: 04.02.2007
(NARESH KADIAN)
Petitioner in Person
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Cr. Misc. No. _______ of 2007
In
Cr. Misc. No. _________ of 2007
Naresh Kadian, Chairman, People for Animals, Haryana (Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Haryana), 75, Km. Miles Stone, Mathura Road, Sarai Katela, Faridabad.
. . . . . . . Petitioner
Versus
Union Territory, Chandigarh through its Home Secretary
Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh
.. . . . . . Respondent
Affidavit Naresh Kadian, Chairman, People for Animals, Haryana (Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Haryana), 75, Km. Miles Stone, Mathura Road, Sarai Katela, Faridabad.
I the above named deponent do hereby solemnly declared as under:-
1. That the petitioner is a Chairman of People for Animals, Haryana and the present petitioner is working in the interest of general public.
2. That the petitioner filed a complaint before the respondent No. 2 vide Annexure P-1, where complaint has been made against you tube-google and other under the cyber crime for using the filthy/dirty language against the former Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi.
3. That the petitioner attached the complete paper book where derogatory remarks have been made against the former Prime Minister of India Smt. Indira Gandhi. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that the complete paper book attached alongwith complaint Annexure P-1 showing the violation of Information Technology Act, 2000 amended in 2006.
4. That the petitioner approached several times to the respondent No. 2 for taking appropriate action against the culprits who used such type filthy language against former Prime Minister late Smt. Indira Gandhi but the respondents are not taking any action against the you tube and google where all the materials are lying in You Tube site. Further, it is necessary to mention here that on December 10, news item has been given by the Tribune News Service, where necessary action which has been sought, has been mentioned.
5. That the Section 67 of the Information Technology Act is reproduced below for the perusal of this Hon'ble High Court :-
"67. Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to five years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and also with fine which may extend to two lakh rupees."
6. That after perusing the contents of the complaint Annexure P-1 and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, it has been proved that the material publishes and transmits in the electronic form, which is lascivious and effecting the image of the former Prime Minister, where various dirty and filthy words have been published in the electronic form on You Tube site and google is the owner of this site. The petitioner requested to the google for removing the above said filthy words and further he also made a request for taking action against the accused but no action has been taken by google as well as respondents. Hence the petitioner is filing the petitioner before this Hon'ble High Court for taking action as per law.
7. That Section 154 and 156 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 have been reproduced below for the perusal of this Hon'ble High Court:-
154. (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.
(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.
(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-Section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned, who if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence."
XX XX XX XX XX
XX XX XX XX
156(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order OF A Magistrate investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.
(2) No proceeding of a police-officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.
(3) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as above mentioned.
8. That as per the above said contents of Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is crystal clear that the respondents are bound to take appropriate action against the culprits/accused but after getting the detailed information, no action has been taken by the police. Thus, this is a clear cut violation of Section 156 of Code of Criminal Procedure as well as established law, where this Hon'ble High Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court has given direction in several cases for registering a case after getting information of cognizable offence. In the present case cognizable offence has been made by the culprits and respondents are bound to take action in accordance with law.
9. That the petitioner is a Chairman of the People for Animals, Haryana and the site of the Society has been hacked. The petitioner had made of cognizable office and respondents are bound to register a case and then enquire the entire matter. In this reference this Hon'ble High Court has already held in case titled Sukhdev Singh Versus State reported 1999 (1) RCR, Criminal, page 65 that once the complaint disclosed the commission of offence police has to register the case provided under Section 154 (4) Cr. P.C. and then investigate the same. In similar circumstances, this Hon'ble High Court held in case titled Sarvan Ram Versus State of Punjab reported 1999 (1) RCR Criminal, page 133, where similar controversy has been resolved. The Division Bench of Delhi High Court held in case titled Satish Kumar Goel Versus State reported 2001 (1) RCR Criminal, page 25, where it has been held that if complaint disclosed the commission of cognizable offence - officer incharge of Police Station is duty bound to register FIR and then investigate the matter. Further, this Hon'ble High Court held in case titled Jagtar Singh Versus State of Punjab reported 1999(2) RCR Criminal, page 134, where it has been held that police has to register FIR then investigate or enquire the matter, enquiry prior to registration of FIR, is contrary to the provision of Section 154 of Cr. P.C. The Allahabad High Court held in case titled Gulab Chand Upadhyaya Versus State of U.P. reported 2002(3) RCR, page 514, where it has been held that if the FIR has not been registered by the police then under Section 154 (3) Cr.P.C. substance of the FIR can be sent to the Superintendent of Police by post, who has the power to investigate the offence himself or depute the subordinate officer for investigation.
10. That as per the above said facts and the respondents are bound to take appropriate action as per law against the accused.
11. That no such or similar petition has
been filed either before this Hon'ble High Court
or Hon'ble Supreme court of India.
Chandigarh
DATED: 04.02.2008
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Verified that the contents of the abovesaid affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and nothing has been concealed threin.
Chandigarh
DATED: 04.02.2008
DEPONENT
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Cr. Misc. No. _______ of 2007
In
Cr. Misc. No. _________ of 2007
Naresh Kadian
. . . . . . . Petitioner
Versus
Union Territory, Chandigarh
. . . . . . . Respondent
I N D E X
Sr. No.
Particulars
Date
Page
1.
Application for exemption
04.02.2008
1 - 2
2.
Petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for registration of a case under Information Technology Act
04.02.2008
3 - 12
3.
Affidavit
04.02.2008
13-21
4.
Annexure P-1 (Complaint with paper book alongwith receipt)
16.1.2008
22 -42
5.
Power of Attorney
04.02.2008
43
CHANDIGARH
DATED: 04.02.2007
(NARESH KADIAN)
Petitioner in Person