IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 332 of 2011() ---------------------------------- ( CRIME NO.2/2011 OF CYBER CRIMES POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) ----------------------------- PETITIONER(S): 2ND ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------- V.R.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, MANAGING DIRECTOR, INDIA SYNDICATE COM PVT.LTD. 1133, 4TH FLOOR, ABOVE FOOD WORLD, 100 FEET ROAD, HAL II STAGE, INDIRA NAGAR, BANGALORE. BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN VYASAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CYBER CELL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.PIN- 682 031 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.332 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 21st day of February, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is second accused in Crime No.2 of 2011 of the Cyber Crime Police Station, Trivandrum and challenges Annexure- A1, FIR registered against him and others for offences punishable under Secs. 465 and 469 r/w Sec.66A of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 (for short, "the Act”). Case was registered on the complaint of a former Director General of Police alleging that video containing news items telecast by a TV channel against the resort run by him was defamatory and that the news item alleged that the resort was indulging in illegal constructions and diversion of watercourse. On the strength of that complaint a case was registered. Petitioner says that as per Annexure-A2 dated 19.01.2011 he was issued a notice under Sec.91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to produce certain documents which he has already complied. Annexure-A1, FIR was registered even before that, on 18.01.2011. It is claimed that he is an intermediary who is protected under the provisions of the Act. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the articles telecast by the channel is to be compared with the articles published by the Crl.M.C.No.332 of 2011 -: 2 :- channel through YouTube. Whether petitioner is an intermediary is to be ascertained. The truth of allegations made against the de facto complainant as indulging in illegal constructions and diverting watercourse is to be ascertained. It is seen that investigation is in the preliminary stages. At this stage it is not necessary to stall the investigation as if no offence is made out. It is for the investigating agency to go into that aspect of the matter and ascertain whether petitioner has committed any offence and if so, what it is. I do not think that interference at this stage is required. However I make it clear that in case any final report is filed against petitioner it is open to him to challenge it if otherwise he is entitled to that course. This criminal miscellaneous case is closed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-