PIL moved to remove all defamatory material from Internet about Smt. Indira Gandhi - Naresh Kadyan
-
Upload
naresh-kadyan -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of PIL moved to remove all defamatory material from Internet about Smt. Indira Gandhi - Naresh Kadyan
-
8/14/2019 PIL moved to remove all defamatory material from Internet about Smt. Indira Gandhi - Naresh Kadyan
1/24
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 Honble 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
-
8/14/2019 PIL moved to remove all defamatory material from Internet about Smt. Indira Gandhi - Naresh Kadyan
2/24
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
-
8/14/2019 PIL moved to remove all defamatory material from Internet about Smt. Indira Gandhi - Naresh Kadyan
3/24
-
8/14/2019 PIL moved to remove all defamatory material from Internet about Smt. Indira Gandhi - Naresh Kadyan
4/24
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.
-
8/14/2019 PIL moved to remove all defamatory material from Internet about Smt. Indira Gandhi - Naresh Kadyan
5/24
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
-
8/14/2019 PIL moved to remove all defamatory material from Internet about Smt. Indira Gandhi - Naresh Kadyan
6/24
-
8/14/2019 PIL moved to remove all defamatory material from Internet about Smt. Indira Gandhi - Naresh Kadyan
7/24
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
-
8/14/2019 PIL moved to remove all defamatory material from Internet about Smt. Indira Gandhi - Naresh Kadyan
8/24
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.
-
8/14/2019 PIL moved to remove all defamatory material from Internet about Smt. Indira Gandhi - Naresh Kadyan
9/24
(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.
-
8/14/2019 PIL moved to remove all defamatory material from Internet about Smt. Indira Gandhi - Naresh Kadyan
10/24
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
-
8/14/2019 PIL moved to remove all defamatory material from Internet about Smt. Indira Gandhi - Naresh Kadyan
11/24
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.
-
8/14/2019 PIL moved to remove all defamatory material from Internet about Smt. Indira Gandhi - Naresh Kadyan
12/24
-
8/14/2019 PIL moved to remove all defamatory material from Internet about Smt. Indira Gandhi - Naresh Kadyan
13/24
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 Section482 Cr. P.C. forregistration of a caseunder InformationTechnology Act
04.02.2008 3 - 12
3. Annexure P-1 (Complaintwith paper book alongwithreceipt)
16.1.2008 13 - 33
4. Power of Attorney 04.02.2008 34
CHANDIGARH
DATED: 04.02.2007
(NARESH KADIAN)
Petitioner in Person
-
8/14/2019 PIL moved to remove all defamatory material from Internet about Smt. Indira Gandhi - Naresh Kadyan
14/24
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
3. Union Territory, Chandigarh through its Home
Secretary
4. 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:-
-
8/14/2019 PIL moved to remove all defamatory material from Internet about Smt. Indira Gandhi - Naresh Kadyan
15/24
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.
-
8/14/2019 PIL moved to remove all defamatory material from Internet about Smt. Indira Gandhi - Naresh Kadyan
16/24
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
-
8/14/2019 PIL moved to remove all defamatory material from Internet about Smt. Indira Gandhi - Naresh Kadyan
17/24
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
-
8/14/2019 PIL moved to remove all defamatory material from Internet about Smt. Indira Gandhi - Naresh Kadyan
18/24
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
-
8/14/2019 PIL moved to remove all defamatory material from Internet about Smt. Indira Gandhi - Naresh Kadyan
19/24
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.
-
8/14/2019 PIL moved to remove all defamatory material from Internet about Smt. Indira Gandhi - Naresh Kadyan
20/24
(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
-
8/14/2019 PIL moved to remove all defamatory material from Internet about Smt. Indira Gandhi - Naresh Kadyan
21/24
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)
-
8/14/2019 PIL moved to remove all defamatory material from Internet about Smt. Indira Gandhi - Naresh Kadyan
22/24
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.
ChandigarhDATED: 04.02.2008
DEPONENTVERIFICATION
Verified that the contents of the abovesaidaffidavit are true and correct to my knowledge andnothing has been concealed threin.
ChandigarhDATED: 04.02.2008
DEPONENT
-
8/14/2019 PIL moved to remove all defamatory material from Internet about Smt. Indira Gandhi - Naresh Kadyan
23/24
-
8/14/2019 PIL moved to remove all defamatory material from Internet about Smt. Indira Gandhi - Naresh Kadyan
24/24