Merely Watching Pornographic Material Is Not An Offence: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a man while observing that watching a pornographic website is not publishing or transmitting of material as necessary under Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2008.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Petition questioning the criminal proceedings for an offence punishable under Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2008.
The bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed, “The allegation against the petitioner is that he has watched a pornographic website. This, in the considered view of the Court, would not become publishing or transmitting of material, as is necessary under Section 67B of the IT Act.”
Advocate S Jagan Babu appeared for the Appellant and HCGP Harish Ganapathi appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts-
A complaint was registered against the petitioner for allegedly accessing a website containing child pornographic material. This was detected by a cyber Tipline, which flagged the IP address linked to the petitioner's mobile number and address. Two months later, a complaint was formally registered for an offence under Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2008. Following this, the petitioner promptly approached the Court with the current petition.
The Court said that at best, as contended, the petitioner could be a porn addict, who has watched pornographic material and nothing beyond this, is alleged against the petitioner.
The Court said that further proceedings cannot be permitted to be continued, as it would become an abuse of process of law.
The Court mentioned the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal where the Court by way of illustration gave instances where extraordinary power of the Court as, “Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused….Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.”
The Court said that even if the facts that form the complaint are accepted as true, it would not make out any offence.
Therefore, according to the Court, the impugned proceedings cannot be permitted to be continued, as it does not make out an offence under Section 67B of the IT Act.
Finally, the Court allowed the Criminal Petition.
Cause Title: Inayathulla N. v. State by Police Sub Inspector (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:26513)
