'Amazed That FIRs Under 'Unconstitutional' Section 66A IT Act Are Still Being Registered In UP': Allahabad HC Quashes FIR [Read Order]

The Allahabad High Court quashed an FIR registered against a person under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2002.

When the petition filed by one Nand Lal Singh Yadav seeking quashing of the FIR came for admission, the High Court had directed the Investigating Officer to be physically present along with records and his explanation. In its order granting stay, the bench, referring to Shreya Singhal judgment, had observed thus:

"We are amazed that despite Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 having been declared ultra vires by the Apex Court in Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1 yet F.I.R's are being registered in our State under the said provision...We are back to square one wherein the instant FIR has been registered under Section 66-A of the I.T. Act, 2000. Prima facie the action discloses complete disregard to the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court. We could have summoned the senior police officials but refrain from doing so in view of the current pandemic."

On the next date of hearing, the officer appeared and filed an affidavit stating that except offence punishable under Section 66A of I.T. Act, no other offence is disclosed against the accused. Recording this statement, the bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and Anil Kumar, quashed the FIR.

Recently, in another case, the High Court had directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura to file his personal affidavit explaining as to how the F.I.R. has been registered under section 66A. The case was later closed as infructuous after the police officer reported that the offence under Section 66A was deleted.

Live Law had reported about two orders of the Allahabad High Court refusing to quash the FIR under Section 66A. In one case, a Journalist Shiv Kumar (Amar Ujala), had approached the High Court seeking to quash the FIR registered against him under section 188 and 505 of Indian Penal Code read with section 3 of Epidemic Act and Section 66A of Information Technology Act. Disposing of his petition, the Court found that 'it is apparent that cognizable offence is there for which investigation is in process, hence no ground for indulgence is made out.' In the other case, the bench headed by Justice Ramesh Sinha refused to quash the F.I.R.registered against a person named Rohit Singhal under Section 66A Information Technology Act even though the counsel cited the Supreme Court judgment in Shreya Singhal.