State Vs Unknown CRM-632-2022

Present Sh Varun Sharma Ld APP for the State

Sh Chandan Deep Singh Advocate for Twitter inc.

Reply not filed. The perusal of the file shows that the applicant

Twitter Inc. filed application on 07.06.2022 seeking permission to place on

record facts pursuant to order dated 02.05.2022 and after availing sufficient

opportunities, the state failed to file reply to said application. However, as on

10.10.2022 another application was filed by Twitter Inc. to place on record

complete copy of earlier application filed on 07.06.2022, which was allowed

vide order dated 10.10.2022, thus fresh opportunity was given to the State to

file reply, but it has failed to do so and thus I deem it fit to proceed further

with the present case.

2. Arguments heard on application filed by Twitter Inc. seeking

permission to place on record facts pursuant to order dated 02.05.2022 and to

hold that Twitter inc has complied with the order dated 02.05.2022 and

dispense with the compliance of information sought as stated in order dated

02.05.2022 and to dispose off the application under section 91 CrPC filed by

the prosecution as complied against the applicant.

The perusal of the file shows that prosecution has filed an

application under section 91 CrPC seeking direction to (i) Chief Compliance

Officer (ii) Resident Grievance Officer and (iii) The Administer/Legal Cell

Twitter India (Office on 8 th floor) The Estate, 121, Dickenson

Road/Banglore, 560042 E-Mail grievance-officer-in@twitter.com to produce

the relevant record pertaining to source, location and manner of origin and

spread of the Tweet/letter in question along with complete details of the

Twitter account from which the said letter originated and the person
operating the said account responsible for publishing the said tweet ie

Annexure A3 and thereafter vide order dated 02.05.2022, direction has been

given to (i) Compliance Officer (ii) Resident Grievance Chief

Officer and (iii) The Administer/Legal Cell Twitter India (Office on 8 th

floor, The Estate, 121, Dickenson Road/Banglore,560042, E-Mail grievance-

officer-in@twitter.com to produce/provide the detail regarding the account

from which the said tweet/letter Annexure P3, has originated/posted for the

first time, detail and registered email address and mobile number of the

account holder, the IP address of the device from which it was posted, and

the location from where the said tweet was uploaded, list of accounts which

have posted the above said tweet/letter from their account and their registered

email ids and mobile numbers and also to provide appropriate certificate

under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, before this court.

Now the present application has been filed by Twitter Inc.

wherein it has stated that it has provided certain information regarding the

account from which the tweet/letter in Annexure P3 was posted for first time,

however though the Twitter Inc. is SSMI as per rules of 4(2) of Information

Technologies Rules 2021, but it is not engaged primarily in the service of

messaging and therefore, rule 4(2) of Rules 2021 does not apply and thus the

applicant is not required to enable, the identification of the first originator of

information and consequently, the compliance with direction to

produce/provide details regarding the first originator, email address and

mobile number of account holder, IP address and location of first originator

as mentioned in order dated 02.05.2022 may be dispensed with.

The prosecution has failed to file reply to the application filed by

Twitter Inc. in order to dispute the version of the applicant rather as per the
file earlier, official from PS Cyber Crime was appearing to pursue the present

case but after filing of present application on 07.06.2022, the said official

appeared on 04.07.0222, 18.07.2022 and 28.07.2022 and sought time for

filing reply and thereafter neither reply has been filed nor any official from

PS Cyber Crime has appeared, which supports the plea of the applicant

Twitter Inc. that it has complied with the order dated 02.05.2022 except the

information relating to the identification of the first originator of information.

Further, as the applicant Twitter Inc has pleaded that it is not engaged in

service of messaging and not able to provide information of first originator of

information, email address and mobile number of account holder, IP address

and location of first originator as mentioned in order dated 02.05.2022 and

nothing contrary has been pleaded or brought on record by the prosecution,

thus it would be appropriate to dispense with the said direction in this regard.

In view of my above discussion, as the applicant Twitter Inc. has

substantially complied with the order dated 02.05.2022 and provided the

information to the investigating agency, except the information of first

originator of information, email address and mobile number of account

holder, IP address and location of first originator as mentioned in order dated

02.05.2022, which it could not provide being not engaged primarily in

service of messaging, then no further proceedings are required on the

application filed by the prosecution under section 91 Cr.PC and same stands

disposed of accordingly. File be consigned to the Judicial Record Room, SAS

Nagar after due compliance.

Dated:18.10.2022 Jagjeet Singh, PCS

Lakhwinder Kaur Judicial Magistrate First Class
Directly typed SAS Nagar
UID:PB0422