Zuber Ali vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.732 of 2023, dated 26.11.2023, under Sections 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

According to the FIR, a deep fake doctored video of the informant has been prepared and the informant has been threatened that in case, he contests election the deep fake doctored video shall be circulated. The FIR records that such deep fake doctored video was sent to one Bhavna Pandey. The informant has learnt that the deep fake doctored video has been forwarded to the Director General of Police, Uttarakhand.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation, but it appears that the police may violate the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014)8 SCC 273.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that, in fact, the petitioner along with Bhavna Pandey has addressed the communication to the SSP Haridwar raising suspicious that perhaps somebody has conspired against the petitioner and Bhavna Pandey. They had sought inquiry in the matter.

This is writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If FIR discloses commission of offences, generally no interference is warranted unless there are compelling circumstances to do so.

There are allegations in the FIR that some deep fake doctored video of the informant has been made and he is being threatened at the strength of such video. The informant seeks inquiry into it. The FIR definitely discloses commission of offences. It will fall for scrutiny during investigation, as to whether any such video has ever been prepared and if so, who has done it? The truth has to be unearth. On behalf of the petitioner, Annexure No.4 has been referred to. In fact, by virtue of this Annexure No.4, which is a letter addressed by the petitioner also to SSP Haridwar, the petitioner had sought inquiry into the video, which he had received.

The FIR discloses commission of offence. It definitely requires investigation. Therefore, there is no reason to make any interference. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

The petition is dismissed in limine.

In so far as the violation of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is concerned, it is a kind of apprehension that has been raised on behalf of the petitioner. Undoubtedly, in umpteen numbers of cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down guidelines with regard to arrest. In the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down some guidelines. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is the law of land. This Court has no doubt that the Investigating Officer in the instant case, shall follow all the statutory provisions and directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the investigation and on the related issues.