Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

FaceBook Post Saying Call On Pro-CAA Number Would Lead To Caller's Data Being Hacked:Tripura High Court Quashes FIR Against Accused

Sparsh Upadhyay
31 March 2021 5:30 AM GMT
FaceBook Post Saying Call On Pro-CAA Number Would Lead To Callers Data Being Hacked:Tripura High Court Quashes FIR Against Accused
x

The Tripura High Court recently quashed an FIR filed against man for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 153B & 505 of IPC who had allegedly posted on Facebook that if anybody calls on a particular mobile number, the caller's data saved in the mobile phone would be hacked. Significantly, the mobile number in question was being used by BJP inviting members of the public to give...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Tripura High Court recently quashed an FIR filed against man for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 153B & 505 of IPC who had allegedly posted on Facebook that if anybody calls on a particular mobile number, the caller's data saved in the mobile phone would be hacked.

Significantly, the mobile number in question was being used by BJP inviting members of the public to give a missed call to show their support in favour of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (CAA).

The Bench of Chief Justice Akil Kureshi was hearing the application of one Arindam Bhattacharjee who was accused of instigating division amongst religious groups and creating an environment of misinformation which was a public nuisance and that he had spread rumours by posting on FB.

As stated It was alleged that the petitioner had posted a comment suggesting that if anybody calls on the number in question, the caller's data saved in the mobile phone would be hacked.

It was submitted that this would undoubtedly alarm the prospective callers and, in many cases, dissuade them from calling the said number.

Court's observations

At the outset, the Court noted that there was no iota of allegation as to which offence the petitioner in consort with anyone else, agreed to do or caused to be done and thus, in plain terms Section 120B of the IPC is wrongly applied.

Regarding the application of Section 153B, the Court noted that the allegations against the petitioner were that he had wrongly represented to the members of the public that a caller of a particular number would be incurring the risk of his data being hacked.

In relation to Section 153B, the Court observed: -

  • No imputation made that he had claimed that any class of persons cannot bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution and uphold the sovereignty of the country by the reason of their belonging to members of any religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community.
  • No allegation that he had asserted, counselled or advised or propagated or published that any class of persons be denied or deprived their rights as citizens of the country by reason of their being members of a particular religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or community.
  • No allegations that he made or published any assertion or plea concerning the obligation of any class of persons by reason of their being members of any religious, racial, language or regional group et
"This alleged act on part of the petitioner, does not fall within any of the clauses (a) to (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 153B", said the Court.

Further, regarding the application of Section 505 of IPC, which pertains to statements concerning to public mischief, the Court said,

"Once again, the contents of the post of the petitioner may be false, it cannot be said that the same was posted with intent to incite or which is likely to incite any class or community of persons to commit any offence against any other class or community."

Significantly, the Court called it 'ironic' that when the petitioner had made a similar complaint against one Amlan Mukherjee for putting a misleading post on social media which had the tendency to draw innocent callers into making phone calls on the given number, the police authorities did not think it appropriate to register the complaint under any of the provisions which are applied to the petitioner namely Sections 120B, 153A or Section 505 of IPC.

As a result, the impugned F.I.R. was quashed and the petition was disposed of accordingly

Case title - Arindam Bhattacharjee v. State of Tripura [Crl.Petn. No.03/2020]

Click Here To Download Judgment & Order

Read Judgment & Order

Next Story
Share it