Can Google Search Results be cited in Court to portray that a Person is Habitual Offender?

 The complaint was registered for the offence punishable

under Sections 419, 420 of IPC and under Sections 66(C) and

66(D) of Information Technology Act, 2008. However, 419 of IPC is

not attracted in the instant case as there is no impersonation and

the only allegation is that inspite of receiving the amount for supply

of the goods, the petitioner has not supplied the same which is

subject to allegation of cheating. However, further records

discloses that the petitioner has subsequently remitted Rs.8 Lakhs

to the account of the complainant which is admitted by the

prosecution. The argument addressed by the learned HCGP that the google search discloses that the petitioner has cheated number of persons which is evident from the review cannot be accepted as it does not have any legal evidentiary value. {Para 6}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8879/2022

SRI OM PRATAP SINGH Vs THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CYBER AND ECONOMIC WING 

BEFORE

MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

DATED:  13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

Print Page

Does posting a person's name or photograph on a pornographic website amount to a breach of that person's privacy?

 In the present case, the petitioner's photographs and images, though not in themselves obscene or offensive, were taken from her Facebook and Instagram accounts without her consent and were uploaded on a pornographic website, adding derogatory captions to them. It is an irrefutable proposition that if the name and/or likeness of a person appears on a pornographic website, as in the present case, without the the consent or concurrence of such person, such act would by and in itself amount to an offence inter-alia under section 67 of the IT Act. This is so since section 67 makes it an offence to publish or transmit, or causes to be published or transmitted, in the electronic form, any material which appeals to the prurient interests of those who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it. The only purpose of posting the petitioner's photograph on a pornographic website could be to use it to appeal to the prurient interests of those who are likely to see it. That apart, the inclusion of the name and/or likeness of a person on such website, even if the photograph of the person is not in itself obscene or offensive, without consent or concurrence, would at the very least amount to breach of the person's privacy, which a court may, in appropriate cases, injunct or restrain. It is is evident that such publication would likely result in ostracisation and stigmatisation of the person concerned in society; and therefore immediate and efficacious remedy is required in such cases. {Para 86}

 In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(Before Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J.)

‘X’  Vs  Union of India and Others 

W.P.(CRL) 1082/2020 & Crl. M.A. Nos. 9485/2020, 10986-87/2020

Decided on April 20, 2021

Citation: 2021 SCC OnLine Del 1788.

Print Page

Whether intermediaries like Google India, Yahoo can put anything that violates laws of India?

There can be no dispute that the respondents, namely, Google
India, Yahoo ! India and Microsoft (I) Pvt. Ltd. cannot, in the
name of intermediaries, cannot put anything that violates the laws
of this country.
 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 341/2008
SABU MATHEW GEORGE 
 VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 

Date : 05/07/2016 
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

Print Page

Competition commission of India has closed case against facebook and google for abuse of dominance

 Further, the Commission notes that the Informant has not made any specific
allegation against OP 5 to OP 10. In any case, the Commission views these
public fora as a platform for providing opportunities to individuals for
registering their grievances and spreading public awareness. The general
averments made by the Informant against these fora, including publication of
defamatory materials on these websites allegedly maligning the Informant’s
reputation, do not raise any competition concern. Thus, the allegations in the
present case do not involve any issue which contravenes the provisions of
section 4 of the Act.

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Case No. 83 of 2015
In Re:
 Taj Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

And
1. Facebook

2. Google India Pvt. Ltd.

CORAM
Mr. Ashok Chawla
Chairperson
Mr. S. L. Bunker
Member
Mr. Sudhir Mital
Member
Mr. U.C. Nahta
Member

Mr. M. S. Sahoo
Member
Justice (Retd.) Mr. G. P. Mittal
Member
Dated: 07.10.2015

Print Page