HC refuses to quash FIR against woman accused of uploading obscene video online

The Karnataka High Court has declined to quash an FIR registered against a woman accused of ‘uploading’ an obscene video online, saying the presence of the petitioner is required for the purpose of investigation and to clear her name.

The petitioner has approached the High Court claiming that she has been living in Dubai for the last 13 years and someone has misused her identity to obtain a SIM card for the crime.

The court observed that her name being mentioned in the FIR does not make her a culprit and she is only a suspected accused. Hence, she has to appear for the investigation and provide details allowing the police to file the charge sheet against the real perpetrators.

The accused moved the HC and her petition was heard by Justice K Natarajan. She has been charged under Sections 67 and 67(B) of the Information Technology Act for allegedly uploading a nude video on the internet.

The case was registered by the Cyber, Economic and Narcotics Crime (CEN) police on January 16, 2021 naming the petitioner as the accused after obtaining details from the mobile service providers. The SIM card used for uploading the video was in the name of the accused. In the meantime, another accused in the case obtained anticipatory bail. The petitioner contended before the HC that she has been residing in Dubai for the last 13 years and “if somebody used the phone and purchased the SIM card in her name, then she is not responsible for the it.” It was also claimed that the original complaint was against another person named Midula S/o Muralidharan.

The government advocate argued that the mention of the name, Midula in the complaint was a “mistake committed by the police during the cut and paste method in the computer.” The two were completely different cases. He argued that the accused is “very much required for investigation to confirm whether the SIM card was obtained by her or not or she has purchased or given it to some other person or not which has to be investigated.” Dismissing the petition, the court said, “Merely the name of the petitioner appeared in the FIR, that itself cannot be construed as she is the main culprit, but, she is only a suspected accused. Therefore, the police are at liberty to file a charge-sheet against the original/actual accused persons. Therefore, the presence of this petitioner is required for the purpose of investigation.” The HC said that she should appear for investigation in order to clear her name.