Avinash Bhanudas Nitone v. The State Of Maharashtra, Through P.S.O. (Mauda), Nagpur (Gramin) And Another

Order 2602apl31.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 31/2016.

Avinash Bhanudas Nitone -VERSUS1.State of Maharashtra and another Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

CORAM

: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & V.M.DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATE : FEBRUARY 26, 2016.

Heard Shri V.B. Bhise, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Maldhure, learned A.P.P. for respondent no.1.

2.

Criminal Application needs to be allowed in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shreya Singhal .vrs. Union of India (2015(4) Scale 1), by which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared Section 66A of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 as 'Unconstitutional'. 3.

The present FIR i.e. FIR No. 3062/2014

Order 2602apl31.16 registered with Police Station, Mauda, District Nagpur is registered under Sections 66(A) and (B) of the said Act. Yesterday when this matter was called out, learned A.P.P. was specifically asked to take instructions from the Investigating Officer as to under which provisions of the Act the FIR is registered. 4.

Today, learned A.P.P. upon instructions submits that the FIR is also registered under Section 66B.

5.

After having gone through the contents of the FIR and other documents placed on record, it is clear that the ingredients of Section 66B cannot be made applicable in the present case. Section 66A contains sub-sections [a] and [b], which could have been invoked in the present facts. In that view of the matter, FIR No. 3062/2014 registered with Police Station, Mauda, District Nagpur is quashed and set aside.

6.

Criminal Application is accordingly allowed and disposed of. No costs.

JUDGE JUDGE Rgd.