In a criminal petition filed before the Karnataka High Court to quash proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), along with Sections 66(c), 66(d), and 67(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, a Single Judge Bench of Justice M.I. Arun found no error in the order of the trial court to frame charges against the petitioner after taking note of the fake social media accounts made in the respondent’s name and dismissed the petition.
The respondent was the estranged sister-in-law of the petitioner, and she alleged that the petitioner had been harassing her by creating fake social media accounts and defaming her. It was submitted that one such account portrays her as a call girl seeking men, and that these fake accounts are not private, leading to the large-scale publicization of the content.
For the reasons aforesaid, the respondent preferred a complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), the trial court took cognizance of the offences, and an order was passed charging the petitioner with the offences mentioned above. The same was challenged in the present petition.
The Court stated that if the allegations against the petitioner are proved, his acts would constitute defamation, as the creation of a fake social media account is an offence under Section 66C of the IT Act. The Court noted that, as per the trial court’s conclusion, a fake social media account was made in the name of the respondent and that there were other fake accounts that had defamatory statements. Hence, the Court refused to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the petition.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Shridharamurthy H R
For Respondent – Ms. Shireesha S, K.N. Subba Reddy Assts.
