You are on page 1of 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 Hon’ble 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
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
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

1. Union Territory, Chandigarh through its Home

Secretary

2. Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh

.. . . . . . Respondent

Petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C.

for registration of a case under

Information Technology Act amended in

2006 as well as other Sections of the

Indian Penal Code, investigating the

entire matter and for taking

appropriate action against the accused

in accordance with law and direction

to the respondents to remove the
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.
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
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

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

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

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.

(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

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)

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.
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that

the present petition may kindly be allowed and the

Criminal case may be registered under Information

Technology Act, 2000 amended in 2006 as well as

other Sections of the Indian Penal Code and then

investigate the entire matter and take appropriate

action against the accused in accordance with law.

It is further requested that direction may be given

to respondents to remove the filthy language and

derogatory remarks from the You Tube site (google),

which has been published against the former Prime

Minister late Smt. Indira Gandhi.

Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court

deem fit and proper may be granted in favour of the

petitioner, keeping in view of the facts and

circumstances of the present case

CHANDIGARH

DATED: 04.02.2007

(NARESH KADIAN)
Petitioner in Person
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. Particulars Date Page
No.
1. Application for exemption 04.02.2008 1 - 2

2. Petition under Section 04.02.2008 3 - 12
482 Cr. P.C. for
registration of a case
under Information
Technology Act

3. Annexure P-1 (Complaint 16.1.2008 13 - 33
with paper book alongwith
receipt)

4. Power of Attorney 04.02.2008 34

CHANDIGARH

DATED: 04.02.2007

(NARESH KADIAN)
Petitioner in Person
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:-
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.
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
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
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
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.
(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
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)
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.

Chandigarh
DATED: 04.02.2008

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION

Verified that the contents of the abovesaid
affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and
nothing has been concealed threin.

Chandigarh
DATED: 04.02.2008

DEPONENT
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. Particulars Date Page
No.
1. Application for exemption 04.02.2008 1 - 2

2. Petition under Section 04.02.2008 3 - 12
482 Cr. P.C. for
registration of a case
under Information
Technology Act

3. Affidavit 04.02.2008 13-21
4. Annexure P-1 (Complaint 16.1.2008 22 -42
with paper book alongwith
receipt)

5. Power of Attorney 04.02.2008 43

CHANDIGARH

DATED: 04.02.2007

(NARESH KADIAN)
Petitioner in Person