21 Feb 2022 10:55 AM GMT
The Allahabad High Court today observed that the 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 it violates the right to reputation of others.The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh observed thus while refusing to quash criminal...
The Allahabad High Court today observed that the 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 it violates the right to reputation of others.
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh observed thus while refusing to quash criminal proceedings including the charge sheet, cognizance and the summoning order passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar against one Niyaz Ahmad Khan who allegedly shared morphed photos of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Facebook.
The case in brief
Essentially, Khan was booked under Section 67 Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 and Section 500 IPC for allegedly sharing a morphed photo showing Prime Minister Narendra Modi shaking hands with dreaded and wanted terrorist Hafiz Saeed in April 2018 on Facebook.
Similarly, another post (a morphed photograph), was shared by Khan in April 2018 showing that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Cabinet Minister Amit Shah were feeding biscuits to dogs, on whom "Aaj Tak TV", "Zee TV" and "India TV".
Having persued the contents of the FIR, the posts in question, and the entire facts and circumstances of the Case, the Court did not find it to be a case falling in the categories as recognized by the Apex Court for quashing the criminal proceeding of the trial court at the pre-trial stage.
"The grounds taken in the application reveal that many of them relate to disputed question of fact. This 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. The 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 noted.
Therefore, considering the nature of allegations against the applicant and noting that the cognizable offence is made out, the Court, being prima facie satisfied about the existence of sufficient ground to proceed in the matter, refused to quash the proceedings.
"The impugned criminal proceeding under the facts of this case cannot be said to be an abuse of the process of the Court. There is no good ground to invoke inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court," the Court observed as it dismissed the plea.
Case title - Niyaz Ahmad Khan v. State of U.P. and AnotherCase citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 58
Click Here To Read/Download Order