The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of sending an “obscene” WhatsApp message. The message objected to inviting Hindu priests for a function hall inauguration. The Court held that the allegation does not satisfy Section 67 of the Information Technology Act.
Justice Rajesh K. Rai examined the message and found no obscene content. The Court noted that the petitioner had only questioned the presence of Hindu priests at the ceremony. In the message, he allegedly said that Hindu priests “treated Muslims very badly.” However, the Court held that this does not amount to publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form. Therefore, Section 67 of the I.T. Act was not attracted.
The Court also observed that the petitioner had not sent, published, or transmitted any obscene content to the complainant. In these circumstances, a trial would serve no purpose. Even if the allegations were accepted as stated, the charge-sheet did not disclose any offence under the provision invoked.
Background: Complaint and FIR
According to the complainant, his brother had constructed a function hall. For the inauguration, they invited Hindu and Muslim religious leaders. They also invited political leaders.
The complainant alleged that on 13.11.2021, while he and his brother were near the hall, he received a WhatsApp message from the petitioner. He claimed the message contained defamatory remarks. He further alleged that the petitioner said they should not have invited Hindu priests because they “treat Muslims very badly.” The complaint also claimed the petitioner said the priests were “born for doing pooja only.”
Based on the complaint, the police registered an FIR under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. This provision prescribes punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form.
Submissions Before the Court
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the alleged WhatsApp message does not attract Section 67. On the other hand, the State opposed the petition. It submitted that the investigation was complete and a charge-sheet had been filed. Therefore, it argued, the proceedings should not be quashed.
High Court’s Ruling
The High Court rejected the State’s objection. It held that continuing the case would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, it quashed the order taking cognisance, the summons issued to the accused, and the charge-sheet. The Court also allowed the petition.
Case Title: ABDUL KHAVEE v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA & Anr.
