24.08.2026 Sl. No.3 Ct. No.237 S.A. CRR 2025 of 2025 Dipankar Guha -vs- The State of West Bengal & Anr. Mr. Dipanjan Chatterjee Mr. Prateep Bera Mr. Anirban Dutta Mr. Ranjan Barik Ms. Kakan Das Ms. Rimpa Adhikari …for the petitioner Mr. Kallol Mondal Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta Mr. Sreyansh Kumar Singh …for the State Mr. Anirban Dutta, learned Advocate, led by Mr. Dipanjan Chatterjee, appearing for the petitioner, has rightly submitted before this Court that the present FIR registered against the petitioner under Sections 61(2) and 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 43 and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, being FIR No. 23 dated 18.04.2025 registered by the Cyber Police Station, Detective Department, Kolkata Police, is liable to be quashed. The FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by opposite party no. 2. Opposite party no. 2 alleged that the petitioner had repeatedly targeted him and his family by posting defamatory and offensive content on social media platforms, in a deliberate attempt to malign his reputation in the public domain. It appears that the petitioner had made certain Facebook posts concerning opposite party no. 2, which prompted opposite party no. 2 to lodge the complaint before the Cyber Police Station, 2 Detective Department, Kolkata Police. Upon conducting a preliminary enquiry, the aforesaid FIR was registered. Mr. Anirban Dutta, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has rightly pointed out that the alleged acts of the petitioner do not constitute offences under Sections 43 and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Sections 43 and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, are reproduced below: “43. [Penalty and compensation] for damage to computer, computer system, etc.–If any person without permission of the owner or any other person who is incharge of a computer, computer system or computer network,– (a) accesses or secures access to such computer, computer system or computer network [or computer resource]; (b) downloads, copies or extracts any data, computer data base or information from such computer, computer system or computer network including information or data held or stored in any removable storage medium; (c) introduces or causes to be introduced any computer contaminant or computer virus into any computer, computer system or computer network; (d) damages or causes to be damaged any computer, computer system or computer network, data, computer data base or any other programmes residing in such computer, computer system or computer network; (e) disrupts or causes disruption of any computer, computer system or computer network; (f) denies or causes the denial of access to any person authorised to access any computer, computer system or computer network by any means; (g) provides any assistance to any person to facilitate access to a computer, computer system or computer 3 network in contravention of the provisions of this Act, rules or regulations made thereunder; (h) charges the services availed of by a person to the account of another person by tampering with or manipulating any computer, computer system, or computer network, [(i) destroys, deletes or alters any information residing in a computer resource or diminishes its value or utility or affects it injuriously by any means;] [(j) steal, conceals, destroys or alters or causes any person to steal, conceal, destroy or alter any computer source code used for a computer resource with an intention to cause damage;] Explanation.– For the purposes of this section,– (i) “computer contaminant” means any set of computer instructions that are designed– (a) to modify, destroy, record, transmit data or programme residing within a computer, computer system or computer network; or (b) by any means to usurp the normal operation of the computer, computer system, or computer network; (ii) “computer database” means a representation of information, knowledge, facts, concepts or instructions in text, image, audio, video that are being prepared or have been prepared in a formalised manner or have been produced by a computer, computer system or computer network and are intended for use in a computer, computer system or computer network; (iii) “computer virus” means any computer instruction, information, data or programme that destroys, damages, degrades or adversely affects the performance of a computer resource or attaches itself to another computer resource and operates when a programme, data or instruction is executed 4 or some other event takes place in that computer resource; (iv) “damage” means to destroy, alter, delete, add, modify or rearrange any computer resource by any means; [(v) “computer source code” means the listing of programmes, computer commands, design and layout and programme analysis of computer resource in any form.] [66. Computer related offences.– If any person, dishonestly or fraudulently, does any act referred to in section 43, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees or with both. Explanation.–For the purposes of this section,– (a) the word “dishonestly” shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 24 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860); (b) the word “fraudulently” shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 25 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).” It is, therefore, evident that the allegations levelled against the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, cannot constitute offences under the aforesaid provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Mr. Dutta is equally justified in submitting that Section 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is a non-cognizable offence and, therefore, no police action could have been initiated in respect thereof in the absence of due compliance with the procedure prescribed by law. 5 In the facts and circumstances of the present case, Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is also not attracted. Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta, learned Advocate appearing for the State, has fairly submitted before this Court that the aforesaid provisions have been wrongly applied to the petitioner in the present case. In view of the aforesaid, the present FIR registered against the petitioner under Sections 61(2) and 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Sections 43 and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, being FIR No. 23 dated 18.04.2025 registered by the Cyber Police Station, Detective Department, Kolkata Police, stands quashed. Accordingly, CRR 2025 of 2025 stands disposed of. This, however, shall not preclude opposite party no. 2 from taking appropriate steps in accordance with law. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocates for the parties on usual undertakings. (Kausik Chanda, J.)