Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Raghav Chadha Vs. State & Anr. (Delhi High Court)
Appeal Number : Crl. M. C. No. 2570/ 2017
Date of Judgement/Order : 25/09/2017
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

While dealing with the aforesaid arguments, the meaning of ‘Twitter’, `Tweet’ and Retweet, needs to be analyzed. Twitter is an online global message broadcasting platform wherein people create, discover and distribute content. This content is in the form of an alphanumeric message comprising of maximum 140 characters in length and is known as “Tweet”. Anyone with a valid e-mail id can sign-up on this platform (hereinafter referred to as ‘User’) and indulge himself/herself into engaging in conversation with others on the platform via the medium of “Tweets”. These “Tweets” are visible to anyone who visits the profile of the creator of that “Tweet”. Further a user who wants to see the “Tweets” of a particular person in his “Twitter Timeline”, which is a personalized ongoing stream of “Tweets”, can follow that particular person. In this way the “Tweets” of that particular person can be seen without making an effort of opening the profile of the particular person to see his/her “Tweets”. Further, the platform offers a feature known as “Retweet”, which the platform claims, user can use for re-posting of a “Tweet” to share that “Tweet” with their followers quickly. A retweet in essence brings the contents of the original tweet into the immediate attention of the followers of the user who retweets.

The perusal of the complaint, statements of the witnesses examined by the complainant/ respondent No. 2 depict that the petitioner along with other accused persons participated in press conference, issued derogatory statements orally, used twitter handles, retweeted, disseminated, defamatory imputations targeting the complainant/respondent No. 2 through platform of press and media from 15.12.2015 on wards and continued till 20.12.2015 after the sleuths of CBI went to Delhi Secretariat for conducting a search. The said acts, aimed/ targeted at the complainant/ respondent No. 2 and his family members and, attracted adverse attention of public. The individual and collective role of the petitioner and other accused persons is spelled out in the assailed order. The aspect of applicability of Section 34 of the IPC can be gathered from the totality of circumstances to analyze the underlying common intention in commission of alleged offence. The findings of the Trial Court that due to the defamatory imputations made by the petitioner and other accused persons, prima facie the reputation of the complainant/ respondent No. 2, who continues to be a public figure since a considerable number of years, has been lowered indiscriminately in the eyes of the public at large including his family and friends are of significant importance in facts and circumstances of the case. There is sufficient material on record to show that the petitioner is a spokesperson of the political party of which other accused are office bearers and functionaries and belongs to a closed knit group and followed A-1 to carry out the entire campaign using the press conference, post on Facebook, tweet and retweet as a platform to reach a large number of people. Whether retweeting would attract the liability under Section 499 IPC, is a question which requires to be determined in the totality of the circumstances and the same will have to be determined during trial and any interference at this stage by this court is likely to prejudice the findings of the Trial Court. It is not for this Court, while exercising inherent powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C., to go into the merits of the case. Undoubtedly, the Trial Court in its order dated 09.03.2017 adduced the complaint, documents, evidence and all other relevant material and after careful scrutiny, summoned the petitioner on a well reasoned order holding that a prima facie case was made out against the petitioner and there were sufficient grounds for summoning him and to face trial under Sections 499/500 IPC. Finding no infirmity in the impugned orders, the present petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

Full Text of the High Court Judgment / Order is as follows:-

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031