Through: Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Advocate for the respondent/UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
O R D E R
27.01.2012
This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the order passed by Sh. Rajesh Aggarwal, the Adjudicating Officer under the Information Technology Act, 2000, Government of Maharashtra in Complaint No. 2/2010 preferred by the petitioners before the said officer. The reason for filing this petition before this Court is that the Cyber Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, to which an appeal lies against the impugned order, is bereft of the Chairman, and the Tribunal is not in a position to function. Consequently, the jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked.
The petitioners preferred the aforesaid complaint against, inter alia, Ms.Madhvika Joshi, Respondent No.1. Petitioner No. 2 was married to Ms. Madhvika Joshi, whereas petitioner No. 1 is the father-in-law of Ms.Madhvika Joshi. Ms. Madhvika Joshi accessed the e-mail accounts of both the petitioners and printed chat sessions and e-mails from these accounts, which she has used to pursue her case filed against the petitioners under Section 498A IPC. The learned Adjudicating Officer in a well-reasoned order has held that respondent No. 1 is technically guilty of breaching Section 43 of the Information Technology Act (IT Act). However, he observes that respondent No. 1 has utilized the information retrieved by her from the e-mail accounts of the petitioners only for the purpose of pursuing her case against the petitioners, and for no other purpose. She has not used the said information for any other purpose, such as to malign the petitioners or cause any loss to them, and the information retrieved by her has been given only to the police authorities or the Court. On this basis, the Adjudicating Officer has held that the petitioners are not entitled to claim any damages from the respondent No. 1. The Adjudicating Officer has proceeded to impose token fine of Rs.100/- upon respondent No. 1 under Section 66C of the Act.
Section 43 of the IT Act, inter alia, provides that ?If any person without permission of the owner or any other person who is incharge of a
computer, computer system or computer network, ?.. ?.. ?.. downloads, copies or extracts any data, computer data base information from such computer, computer system or computer network including information or data held or stored in any removable storage medium;? such person shall be liable to pay damages by way of compensation to the person so affected.
The claim for compensation would not arise merely on account of the breach of Section 43. The claim would have to be established like in Civil Court, by making requisite averments with regard to the damage suffered, and thereafter by leading evidence in support thereof, to show that one or the other prohibited activities enumerated in Section 43 of the IT Act have resulted in the sufferance of damages by the person concerned.
In the present case, the petitioners evidently have not lead any evidence to show as to what damage they have suffered on account of the retrieval of their e-mails and chat sessions by respondent No. 1. These e-mails and chat sessions have been used by respondent No. 1 in her case lodged against the petitioners under Section 498A IPC. Admittedly, this information has not been made public by respondent No. 1 to malign the petitioners or to hurt their business or reputation. The information has been provided only to the police authorities or to the Court.
The claim for damages and compensation made by the petitioners is worded in the following manner in their written final argument before the Adjudicating Officer:
?38. In this case, accused R-1, R-2 and R-3 had put the victims to huge financial losses to the tune of Rs. 50 lacs; (a) by dragging them into unwanted litigation by registering a false 498A Case (b) by keeping the Complainant?s son in eight days police custody by waving the copies of these illegally hacked, fabricated and created chat sessions (c) by delaying overseas business assignment of the complainant to Hong Kong (d) by blocking the client-site posting of the Complainant?s son Neeraj to USA by way of unauthorized seizure of passport through Police (e) by blocking various business opportunities of the Complainant by way of deleting business mails of the complainant regularly and repeatedly for more than 15 months (f) by damaging reputation in the society.
As such Neeraj and the complainant are entitled for every relief including the discretionary benefits under the Law inforce and hence entitled for all the due relief/compensation legally under the IT Act 2000 as prayed for with cost of the suit as detailed below:
A. Rs. One Lac three thousand paid towards Court Fee/application money.
B. Rs. 25,000/- towards expenses incurred on lodging and travelling to Pune
and Mumbai for pursuing the case at Cyber Crime Cell Pune, before the Hon?ble Adjucating Officer at Mantralaya Mumbai and attending hearing dates.
C. Rs. 50,000/- towards litigation charges paid to the Counsel.
D. Rs. 5000/- towards documentation expenses.
39. Since the complaint is legally tenable and the complainant and Neeraj Kaushik are entitled for the relief as prayed for by imposing heavy exemplary penalty and cost on the Respondents alongwith rigorous imprisonment, so that any such economically well placed employees and the companies could not date to repeat such mal practices and offences which would act as a deterrent for one and for all in future.?
The aforesaid claim has been rejected by the Adjudicating Officer and, in my view, rightly so. The right of the respondent to pursue legal remedies available to her, including under Section 498A IPC, cannot be questioned. The invocation of a right available to a person to ventilate his or her grievances, and to take action against perceived illegalities and criminalities does not give a cause of action to claim damages to those against whom action may be initiated because of such complaints/actions, unless it is eventually found that such complaints/actions was filed maliciously. The petitioners cannot have any grievance because the respondent No.1 has lead in evidence of the materials collected by her in support of her case by breaching Section 43 of the I.T. Act. All the consequences flowing on account of registration of the case under Section 498A IPC against the petitioners are remote and indirect consequences. In any event, it is too premature to conclude that respondent No.1 is accountable for the so called damages.
This being the position, I find no merit in this petition so far as the petitioners claim for damages has been rejected. In case it is held by the concerned Court that the proceedings under Section 498A have been maliciously instituted, it shall be open to the petitioners, at that stage, to take appropriate steps to claim damages against the respondent No. 1 for loses or damages directly arising from such conduct of respondent No.1.
So far as the submission with regard to the levy of token fine of Rs.100/- under Section 66C is concerned, I find no merit in the same either. The submission of the petitioners in this respect is that the said fine cannot be imposed by the Adjudicating Officer, who functions like a Civil Court, whereas the fine could be imposed by a Criminal Court dealing with the offences made out under the Act. The fine has been imposed under Section 66C against the respondent No. 1. In case respondent No. 1 is aggrieved by the said token fine on the ground that the adjudicating authority did not have jurisdiction to levy the same under Section 66C, it shall be open to her to take appropriate action.