http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dd2spk8b_0gzwbd8gpIN 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
