AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Criminal Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.496 of 2026 of Cyberabad Police Station, Hyderabad, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 66 r/w 43 of Information Technology Act, 2000-2008 (for short ‘IT Act’) and Section 63 of Copy Right Act, 1957 (for short ‘CR Act’).
Heard Mr.V.Raghunath, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.Gouravulu Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.K.Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.Manoj Reddy Keshi Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2 through video conference, and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. With their consent, the criminal petition is disposed of at the admission stage.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the alleged offences and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. He further submitted that, from the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients of the offences under Section 66 r/w 43 of IT Act and Section 63 of CR Act are not attracted. He further submitted that the petitioner has neither downloaded any proceedings from the live streaming nor shared any information with any other person through social media. He further submitted that the husband of the petitioner is an accused in a POCSO offence. When the trial Court granted bail in favour of the petitioner's husband, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a criminal petition seeking cancellation of the bail granted to him. In the said proceedings, when the matter was taken up for hearing before the 26th Court on 13.11.2025, the petitioner was physically present before the said Court. He further submitted that, as per the Telangana High Court Rules for Live-Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings, Rule 5 specifically excludes proceedings relating to offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) from live-streaming. Therefore, the question of her downloading any material from Live-Streaming or sharing such material with any other person through social media does not arise. Therefore, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would amount to a clear abuse of the process of law.
He further submitted that the offences levelled against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. The Investigating Officer, without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) and without following the guidelines formulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar1, is proceeding further in the matter and the same is contrary to law.
Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 vehemently contended that there are specific allegations in the complaint that the petitioner recorded the live- streamed proceedings and transmitted the said information through WhatsApp to other persons. The said allegations fall within the ambit of Section 66 r/w 43 of the IT Act. He further submitted that, as per Rule 9(2) of the Telangana High Court Rules for Live-Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings, the petitioner was required to obtain
12014-8 SCC 273 prior permission from the competent authority before downloading and circulating the information. In the case on hand, the petitioner has not obtained any such permission, as required. He further contended that whether the petitioner downloaded the information from the live-streamed proceedings, whether any such material was forwarded to any other person through social media, and whether the petitioner was physically present before the Court are disputed facts, which cannot be adjudicated while exercising the powers conferred under Section 528 of the BNSS, especially the investigation is at threshold. Hence, continuation of the investigation is very much necessary. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings at the threshold.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also reiterated the very same submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2. He further submitted that the investigation is at the threshold. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings.
He also submitted that the offences levelled against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. Therefore, the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) is applicable.
The said submission has not disputed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
This Court has considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the material available on record. The specific case of the petitioner is that she was physically present before this Court on 13.11.2025 and that she neither downloaded any information from the live streaming, nor shared/transmitted any such information to anyone through social media, are disputed facts and the same have to be revealed during the course of investigation, especially the investigation is under progress. Even according to the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the offences levelled against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years, therefore, the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) is applicable.
Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances, the Investigating Officer is directed to follow the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the BNSS, 2023, and also the guidelines formulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra). The petitioner shall also cooperate with the investigation. It is needless to mention that the petitioner is entitled to put forth her grievance by raising all the pleas which are available to her under law as soon as she receives notice from the Investigating Officer.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.