Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Avijit Michael, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court seeking quashing of FIR No. 42 of 2018 registered at Bandra-Kurla Complex Police Station, Mumbai, for offences under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 43(f) and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The FIR was lodged by respondent no.2, Sanjay Balkrushna Dani, alleging that the petitioner had sent offensive messages to Smt. Ashwini Bhide, an IAS officer and Managing Director of Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation, which was engaged in constructing a car-shed in Aarey Dairy land involving tree cutting. The messages allegedly obstructed her in the discharge of her public functions. The High Court examined the FIR and other material on record. The court held that the essential ingredients of Section 186 IPC were not satisfied because the alleged obstruction was not directly connected to the discharge of public functions, and the public servant herself did not come forward to make the complaint. The complainant did not state that he received information from Smt. Ashwini Bhide, and the investigating officer did not ascertain the source of information. Regarding the IT Act offences, the court found that the allegations did not constitute unauthorized access or damage to a computer system under Sections 43(f) and 66. The court concluded that the FIR did not disclose any cognizable offence and was liable to be quashed. The petition was allowed, and the FIR was quashed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Obstruction of Public Servant - Section 186 IPC - Essential Ingredients - For an offence under Section 186 IPC, there must be voluntary obstruction of a public servant in discharge of public functions, and the obstruction must have direct connection with such discharge. The complaint must be made by the public servant who was obstructed. In this case, the alleged obstruction was to Smt. Ashwini Bhide, but she did not come forward to make the complaint; the FIR was lodged by a third party without any information from her. Held that the FIR does not disclose the offence under Section 186 IPC (Paras 4-5). B) Information Technology - Offences under IT Act - Sections 43(f) and 66 - The allegations of sending messages do not constitute unauthorized access or damage to a computer system as required under Sections 43(f) and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Held that no offence under these sections is made out (Para 3). C) Criminal Procedure - Registration of FIR - Cognizable Offence - Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an FIR can be registered only if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence. In this case, the source of information of the complainant was not ascertained, and there was no material to show that any cognizable offence was disclosed. Held that the FIR was liable to be quashed (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute offences under Section 186 IPC and Sections 43(f) and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. FIR No. 42 of 2018 registered at Bandra-Kurla Complex Police Station is quashed.
Law Points
- Section 186 IPC requires voluntary obstruction of public servant in discharge of public functions
- obstruction must be directly connected to public functions
- complaint must be by the obstructed public servant
- Section 43(f) and 66 IT Act require unauthorized access or damage to computer system
- FIR must disclose commission of cognizable offence
