Karnataka HC slaps fine on police officers for registering FIR under struck down Section 66A

The Karnataka High Court recently directed two police officers to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000 each for registering a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 66 (A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act). This provision was struck down from the statute books by the Supreme Court five years ago..Justice PS Dinesh Kumar in his order stated that criminal proceedings were initiated against the the petitioner in the matter invoking a section that has been struck down. In this regard, the High Court order reads, .This is a case in which police have initiated criminal proceedings invoking provisions of law which is not in statute book. Police have initially recorded the complaint as NCR and for reasons best known the very same officer has registered FIR after one week. This is nothing but a clear abuse of process of law and harassment to the citizen.Karnataka High Court.The High Court was approached seeking to quash the FIR filed against the petitioner registered at the Srirampura police station on April 25 last year..Advocate M Aruna Shyam, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the police had taken up investigation for an offence which has been struck down by the Supreme Court. Taking this into account, the Court directed two officers to file affidavits individually. The officers, however, brought to the attention of the Court that they had registered the complaint due to "inadvertence". In this regard, the Court held the following,."It is relevant to note that he is the same officer, who treated the complaint as a non cognizable offence and registered as NCR as 17.04.2019 and also registered FIR...This is nothing but a clear abuse of process of law and harassment to citizen.".In 2015, the Supreme Court had declared Section 66A of the IT Act as unconstitutional in the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. In that case, the Court had held that, “Section 66A has no proximate connection with incitement to commit an offence”, and, hence, is not protected by Article 19 (2)".[Read the Judgment here]