Law cannot be used to harass person: Bombay High Court quashes 'spying' case against man for clicking photo of police station

Law cannot be misused to harass or torment citizens, the Bombay High Court said while quashing a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against a Solapur-based man for spying under the Official Secrets Act (OSA) [Rohan Tukaram @ Appasaheb Kale v. Somnath Haribhau Koli]..A Division Bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan was 'shocked and appalled' to note that an FIR under Section 3 (spying) of the OSA was lodged against the petitioner for clicking a photograph of a police station in Akluj, Solapur from the outside."Invocation of section 3 of the Act, can have drastic consequences on the person against whom it is invoked. It could impact one's reputation, job, career and so on. It cannot be lightly invoked, to jeopardize someone's life and career. Law cannot be misused or abused and must not be used as a tool for harassing or tormenting person," the order stated..While noting the increase in the number of cases wherein OSA provisions are invoked unnecessarily, the Court ordered circulation of copies of this order to the Director General of Police, Commissioner of Police, Mumbai and the Home Department, so as to enable them to take appropriate steps to ensure that the OSA is not misused. "It is also open for the Authorities concerned, to consider whether a senior high ranking level officer be informed when an FIR under the OSA is lodged, in matters concerning the Police Station, to curb misuse of the Act," the Bench ordered.The Court also imposed costs of ₹25,000 on the State, which may be recovered from the police officers who invoked the OSA in this case..The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by one Rohan Kale, who was booked by the police in Akluj, Solapur for clicking a photograph of the police station from the outside.Kale had gone to the police station to lodge a complaint against his opponents in a land dispute. While the police justified its action, the petitioner contended that he merely clicked a photograph of the police speaking to his opponents in a friendly manner..Section 3 of the Act, the judges noted, provides for punishment for acts prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, acts affecting the sovereignty and integrity of India, and so on."Prima facie, it appears to have been malafidely invoked by the concerned Police. By no stretch of imagination, section 3 could have been invoked in the facts of the present case. It is pertinent to note, that the definition of 'prohibited place' as defined in section 2(8) of the Act, is an exhaustive definition, which does not specifically include 'Police Station' as one of the places or establishments...We cannot comprehend, how an FIR could have even been registered on the basis of the said photograph, that too, for a serious offence under section 3 of the Act," the Court held..In its order, the Bench expressed serious concern over the fact that FIRs are being regularly registered by the police under Section 3 of the Act, without application of mind. It was noted that the provisions of the Act were being invoked for videographing of discussions at police stations, taking photographs within the police station, etc.To attract the provisions of the Act, the place where the incident takes place has to be a 'prohibited place,' and a police station does not fall under this definition, the Court clarified.While quashing the FIR, it held,"Registration of the offence as against the petitioner, in the facts, is clearly an abuse of the process of law and if not quashed, would lead to serious miscarriage of justice, which cannot be countenanced.".Advocates Prasad Avhad and Chetan Nagare appeared for the petitioner. Additional Public Prosecutor Jayesh Yagnik represented the State..[Read order]