Private Complaint with Sections 65,66,66A,67 of Information Technology Act and Sec 3,4 & 6 of Indecent representation of Women Act & IPC 180 and IPC 109 registered in a Lower Court.
In a I class magistrate court, a private complaint has been registered for the above sections and acts. The complainant created some Xerox papers of printouts which he claiming “ these xerox copies of printouts posted by the accused No.1 from City B to City B itself, but have mentioned the sender details as of in the City A. Now none of the letters posted in CITY B reached their destinations but returned to complainant who is living in City A”.
Particulars of the Xerox copies of printouts which the complainant claiming to be received in post due to return by postal department as the TO addressee not available:-
1. A xerox paper containing all text characters describing dowry case & other criminal cases between the complainant’s neice and accused No.1.
2. Some photo graphs of complainant’s son and his neice when both were standing beside each other (no nudity or obscenity is there)
3. One photograph of wedding in which bride(complainant’s neice ) and accused (bridegroom) are there.
Now by claiming that these material posted by accused No.1 AND the photographs were stolen
By the accused in January 2007 from Ernakulam (where is Andhra & where is Kerala) which were taken by the accused himself and then he copied them in a CD and stolen away from Ernakulam (Attached IPC 380) . AND AND this acts have been supported by the Accused parents & siblings SO they all must be punished along with A1 (attached IPC 109). For this, the complainant took a strange stand that he visited A1 house and that time A1 along with his parents & siblings presented there. And when the complainant asked them to stop sending these letters to CITY B, then A1 and his relatives shouted on him to get out of the house. SO the complainant is assuming that all the relatives of A1 are abetting the crime of A1 and thus punishable along with him. (He used ASSUMPTION word only in the private complaint).
The aftermath of this private complaint is due to the CORRUPT court staff, the order got passed under 156(3) directing the police to register FIR and investigate.
Now these are the flaws of the private complaint:
1) To apply Section 66,66A and 67 of IT Act, the communication must have been done in electronic form using any computer resource or device. For Ex: E-mail, SMS, MMS, Tweets, Chatting Messages from Computer, Cell Phone and PDA etc.,.
2) To apply Section 65 of IT Act, the changes must have done on computer source code. And generally Software companies who develop software and having proper licence/copyrights to prove that they have generated the Computer Source Program would file this section.
But whereas in this case, there is no such data in electronic form AND no communication service or devices are available. As well as there is no such software developed by the complainant is available. But the Hon’ble Court has registered the private complaint for the above sections.
3) There is no publishing of the papers in the press, news papers or periodicals or in any web site
AND only thing the complainant claiming that these letters distributed by POST , but whereas he himself admitting that he only received those letters due to Non_delivery by the Postal Department. AND moreover there is no nudity in the photographs which enclosed with the private complainant.
So, where is the applicability of “The Indecent representation of Woman Act, 1986” for this allegations.
4) Theft in Dwelling House (IPC 380), the complaint who is a resident of City A of Andhra claiming
That in January 2007, A1 attended some marriage function in City C of KERALA and taken some photographs of the function himself and copied to a CD and stolen away from Kerala. And those photographs only he has used to post.
Now, where is the locus standi of complainant to apply this section. And where is the jurisdiction of the AP court to register this section. One important thing is complainant is MALE (maternal uncle of lady who is in the photograph along with complainant’s son). WHETHER THE THEFT does not mentioned any property related to complainant or THE THEFT not mentioned to be COMMITTED in the complainant’s DWELLING HOUSE.
5) Punishment for Abetting Act (IPC 109), the complainant mentioned that HE visited house of Accused and asked them to stop posting the letters to City B, but A1 and his relatives didn’t listen to complainant and shouted on him to go out. So it seems that relatives of A1 are abetting the acts of A1 and they also punished along with A1 for all the sections and ACTS.
Now, Here is there is no date and time mentioned in the complaint when the complainant
Visited the house of A1 (Becoz there is no such incident happened) and that too A1’s house located in adjacent city (City D). But the great Hon’ble Court registered this private complaint then and there itself(on the same day of submission) and given order U/Sec 156(3).
The Current situation is the POLICE are reluctant and afraid to investigate this matter, Because in the same police station there are other 3 criminal cases ( dowry harassment case, Eve teasing case and IPC 354) had been registered between complainant’s neice and A1 and in trail AS well as two maintenance cases (Domestic violence and CRPC 125) are running between them.
I request the learned members of this forum to throw some light on this that WHETHER any action(criminal case) can be initiated on the Hon’ble Court staff & complainant for registering such a baseless complaint which does not attracts no primafacie and broken all rules of Laws and Acts.
The funny thing is The Same Hon’ble Court staff registered a private complaint for the Act named “Disfigurement of Women in Public Place Act” (Which does not exists in INDIAN LAW) among with other sections by using the same letters and photo graphs. The complainant for this earliler private complaint is the lady (Present Private Complainant’s Neice).
