Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Manish Maheshwari, an employee of Twitter Communications India Private Limited (TCIPL), holding the designation of Managing Director but not appointed under Section 2(54) of the Companies Act, 2013, and not a director as per the company's master data, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution before the Karnataka High Court. He sought to quash a notice dated 26.06.2021 (though the prayer mentions 21.06.2021) issued under Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the respondent State of Uttar Pradesh through the Loni Border Police Station. The notice was issued in connection with FIR No. 502/2021 registered on 15.06.2021 under Sections 153, 153-A, 295-A, 505, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against Twitter Inc. and TCIPL. The FIR alleged that certain tweets and a doctored video were transmitted on the Twitter platform, falsely depicting an incident of an elderly man being beaten and forced to chant 'Jai Sri Ram' and 'Vande Mataram', whereas the actual incident involved a group comprising both Hindus and Muslims assaulting the victim over disbelief in his amulets' supernatural powers. The tweets were re-tweeted widely, spreading communal hatred and religious tension. Despite clarification by Ghaziabad Police via their Twitter handle that the news was fake, the accused, including the corporate entities, failed to remove the content. The petitioner, described as the Managing Director of Twitter India in the notice, received a prior Section 160 CrPC notice on 17.06.2021. He replied by email on 18.06.2021, stating that he was not a director, had no control over the platform, which is operated by Twitter Inc., a US company, and that he had no information relevant to the investigation. He offered to appear via video conferencing, relying on Supreme Court orders in Vinod Dua v. Union of India and Roshni Biswas v. State of West Bengal. The respondent then issued the impugned Section 41-A notice, asserting that the petitioner was avoiding cooperation, that he was responsible as the representative of Twitter in India, and directing personal appearance. The notice warned that failure would be considered resistance to investigation. In the writ petition, the petitioner contended that no cause of action arose in Uttar Pradesh, as his residence and the company's office were in Bengaluru and Mumbai respectively, and the notice was bad in law. The respondent objected to the maintainability, arguing that the petition could not be entertained by the Karnataka High Court since the notices were addressed to addresses in New Delhi and Mumbai, and no part of the cause of action arose within Karnataka. The respondent also contended that the petitioner held himself out as Managing Director and was bound to cooperate, and that the notice under Section 41-A indicated no arrest was intended, rendering the petitioner's apprehension baseless. The court heard arguments and noted that the notice was sent by email and that there is no prescribed format for a Section 41-A notice. It considered the maintainability objection and the facts. The order ends abruptly before a final decision, leaving the disposition unresolved in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Investigation - Section 41-A Notice - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 41-A, 160 - Petitioner challenged notice issued under Section 41-A CrPC by Uttar Pradesh Police requiring his personal appearance for investigation in an FIR alleging communal hatred via tweets; he contended he was not a director or responsible for platform and no cause of action arose in Uttar Pradesh - Respondent argued petitioner held himself out as Managing Director and must cooperate; notice under Section 41-A does not contemplate arrest - No prescribed format for such notice; court considered maintainability of the writ petition (Paras 2-9, 14-15). B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Territorial Limits - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Petitioner filed writ in Karnataka High Court challenging notice from Uttar Pradesh Police, claiming he resided in Bengaluru and his company's registered office was in Mumbai, thus no part of cause of action in Uttar Pradesh - Respondent objected that no cause of action arose in Karnataka as notices were addressed to New Delhi and Mumbai - Court heard the preliminary objection regarding maintainability on territorial grounds (Paras 14-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition filed before the Karnataka High Court is maintainable when the impugned notice under Section 41-A CrPC was issued by the Uttar Pradesh Police and no cause of action arose within Karnataka? Whether the notice under Section 41-A CrPC is liable to be quashed for being issued without jurisdiction or for non-compliance with the law?
Law Points
- Section 41-A CrPC notice requires appearance before police for investigation of cognizable offence
- no prescribed format for such notice
- writ jurisdiction under Article 226 requires cause of action to arise wholly or partly within territorial limits of High Court
- a person holding designation of Managing Director but not appointed as per Companies Act may not be considered officer in default
- notice to employee not responsible for content may be challenged.
