Punishment for sending offensive

messages

Sending offensive messages, Maligning reputation of organization,

causing harm to its revenue….etc is grave problem in the time of
cyber space.
 SMC Pneumatics (India) Pvt. Ltd.
V
Jogesh Kwatra
• In this case, the defendant Jogesh Kwatra
being an employee of the plaintiff company
started sending derogatory, defamatory,
obscene, vulgar, filthy and abusive emails to
his employers as also to different subsidiaries
of the said company all over the world with
the aim to defame the company and its
Managing Director Mr. R K Malhotra.
• The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent
injunction restraining the defendant from
doing his illegal acts of sending derogatory
emails to the plaintiff.
• On behalf of the plaintiffs it was contended
that the emails sent by the defendant were
distinctly obscene, vulgar, abusive,
intimidating, humiliating and defamatory in
nature.
• Counsel further argued that the aim of
sending the said emails was to malign the high
reputation of the plaintiffs all over India and
the world.
• He further contended that the acts of the
defendant in sending the emails had resulted
in invasion of legal rights of the plaintiffs.
• Further, the defendant is under a duty not to
send the aforesaid emails.
• It is pertinent to note that after the plaintiff
company discovered that the said employee
could be indulging in the matter of sending
abusive emails, the plaintiff terminated the
services of the defendant after hearing
detailed arguments of counsel for plaintiff.
• Hon'ble Judge of the Delhi High Court passed
an ex-parte interim injunction observing that
a prima facie case had been made out by the
plaintiff.
• Consequently, the Delhi High Court restrained
the defendant from sending derogatory,
defamatory, obscene, vulgar, humiliating
• and abusive emails either to the plaintiffs or to
its sister subsidiaries all over the world including
their Managing Directors and their sales and
marketing departments.
• Further, Hon'ble Judge also restrained the
defendant from publishing, transmitting or
causing to be published any information in the
actual world as also in cyberspace which is
derogatory or defamatory or abusive of the
plaintiffs.
• This order of Delhi High Court assumes
tremendous significance as this is for the first
time that an Indian Court assumes jurisdiction
in a matter concerning cyber defamation
• and grants an ex-parte injunction restraining
the defendant from defaming the plaintiffs by
sending derogatory, defamatory, abusive and
obscene emails either to the plaintiffs or their
subsidiaries
 State by Cyber Crime PS
VS
Firos. B.F.,
Trivandrum District, Kerala State, 32444, 2015

WHO DID??
The accused was an ex-employee of the
Complainant's Company Mid Day Infomedia Limited,
whose subscribers are from Bengaluru.
• On account of recession, accused was forced to
resign from the Complainant's Company and
hence with the intention of seeking vengeance
though he was not supposed to use the keywords
of Mid Day Infomedia Mobile Alert Program,
What ??
• had illegally hacked into the said mobile alert
program on 16/08/2009 between 11.00 pm to
11.30 pm by using his father-in-law's (Cw.7)
computer system with IP No.117.119.5.94 and
• created 3 CC NO.32444/2010 forged electronic
record of hatred news items namely "Bomb blast
kills 10 in Majestic" "Swine Flu kills seven in
Bengaluru. Two techies killed in Wipro. Three
others killed in Infosys" and
• Sent those messages to the mobile subscribers of
Mid Day by posting them on their website.
• The said messages were sent with the intention of
taking revenge and harming the reputation of Mid
Day and thereby accused had committed the
offences under Section 66 of Information
Technology Act 2000 and Sections 465 and 469 of
IPC.
• Due to Lack of Evidence, proving that the hard
disk used fro sending offensive message was with
the accused.
Hence, Companies lay extreme importance on
keeping electronic evidences, as part of their
process, like log in in machines, CCTV at workplace,
Devises of server of companies and others discussed
in the class.
Kanhaiya Kumar vs The State Of Bihar o
n 4 March, 2020
• The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection
with Mahila P.S. Case No. 39 of 2019 dated
03.07.2019 instituted under Sections 354 and 506
of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 67 and
67(A) of Information Technology Act, 2000
(hereinafter referred to as the 'IT Act').
• Court had granted provisional anticipatory bail to
the petitioner.
• The petitioner is accused of sending of indecent
messages on various mobile numbers of the
informant and her family members.
• Learned APP (Asst Public Prosecutor), from the
case diary, submitted that from the mobile of the
petitioner indecent messages were sent.
• It was further submitted that the police has also
verified it from the CDR records of the numbers
disclosed in the FIR.
• Learned counsel for the informant, who has also
filed a counter affidavit, submitted that from the
personal mobile of the petitioner, messages were
received which has been brought on record.
• It was submitted that the same indicate that the
petitioner was harassing the informant and
sending messages
• which were highly objectionable and indecent. It
was further submitted that even after the Court
having granted him indulgence of provisional bail,
still he has posted objectionable messages which
is clearly a misuse of such privilege.
• Having considered the facts and circumstances of
the case and submissions of learned counsel for
the parties, the Court dismissed bail to the
petitioner.
Herein, the evidence played significant role,
preserving admissible evidence is a requirement
from the organization's side.