Summons Served Through Mobile Phone/ WhatsApp Valid Under BNSS: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Cost Imposed On Constable

From the impugned order, it reveals that

as the summons was served through the mobile

phone and therefore, the cost is imposed by the

Special Court. Admittedly, there is amended

provision in view of Section 70 of BNSS which deals

with proof of service in such cases when serving

officer not present. The sub-Section (3) specifically

states that all summons served through electronic

communication under sections 64 to 71 shall be

considered as duly served and a copy of such

electronic summons shall be attested and kept as a

proof of service of summons as well as Section 530 of

the BNSS also deals with the aspect of trial and

proceedings to be held in electronic mode which

reproduced as under:

All trials, inquires and proceedings under

this Sanhita, including issuance, service and

execution of summons and warrants, examination of

complainant and witness, recording of evidence in

inquiries and trials, all appellate proceedings or any

other proceedings, may be held in electronic mode,

by use of electronic communication or use of audiovideo

electronic means. {Para 6}

7. Thus, after going through this provision it

reveals that now the electronic mode is very well

accepted by the amendment in BNSS and the

purpose which is rightly considered by this Court in

the case of Kross Television India Pvt. Ltd., and

another referred supra wherein it specifically

mentioned that the purpose of service is put the

other party to notice and to give him a copy of the

papers. The mode is surely irrelevant.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 222 OF 2026

State of Maharashtra,  Vs. Satish s/o Sanjay Ramteke

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.

DATED : 12/02/2026

Citation: 2026:BHC-NAG:2733

Print Page

District Judge Interview Prep: Understanding WhatsApp Forensics & CDR/SDR Evidence

 Here are the interview questions with detailed model answers:

1.       What are Call Detail Records (CDR) and Subscriber Detail Records (SDR), and what kind of information do they typically contain?

Answer:

CDRs are telecom operator-generated logs of voice and SMS communications. They typically record caller and receiver numbers, call duration, timestamps, cell tower location (cell ID), and SMS metadata. They help establish who communicated, when, and from where. SDRs contain static subscriber identity data like name, address, KYC information maintained by telecom companies. However, SDRs do not contain communication timing or session details.

2.       Can CDR and SDR provide timing information related to PDFs, audio, or video files shared through WhatsApp? Why or why not?

Print Page

Beyond CDR and SDR: Unlocking WhatsApp's Encrypted Evidence

 

 

Understanding the Critical Limitations of CDR and SDR in App-Based Communication Investigations

In today's digital legal landscape, misconceptions persist regarding the evidentiary capabilities of traditional telecommunication records. Call Detail Records (CDR) and Subscriber Detail Records (SDR), while foundational to telecom investigations, show significant limitations when it comes to app-based communications like WhatsApp file sharing.

Print Page

Digital Privacy vs Fair Trial: High Court's Game-Changing Verdict on WhatsApp Evidence in Family Disputes

 Landmark Ruling Expands Digital Evidence Admissibility in Matrimonial Cases

In a groundbreaking judgment that could reshape how digital evidence is treated in family disputes, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that WhatsApp chats obtained through surveillance—even without consent—can be admitted as evidence in family court proceedings if they assist in resolving matrimonial disputes.

Case Background: Digital Surveillance in Marriage

The case of Smt. Anjali Sharma vs. Raman Upadhyay (M.P. No. 3395/2023)Decided On: 16.06.2025, involved a marriage that took place on December 1, 2016, with a daughter born in October 2017. Th dispute arose when the husband filed for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging cruelty and adultery.

Print Page

Madhya Pradesh HC: Illegally obtained Whatsapp chat is admissible in family court proceeding as per S 14 of Family courts Act

The husband has filed a suit for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground of cruelty. He has also pleaded adultery on the part of wife. In order to prove adultery, in paragraphs 8 & 9 of the plaint, specific pleadings have been made with regard to WhatsApp chat of the wife with a third person. The husband has pleaded that by way of a special application installed in the wife's phone, the WhatsApp chatting of her phone are automatically forwarded to his phone, which shows that the wife is having extramarital affair with a third person.

5. When the suit was at the stage of husband's evidence, he sought to exhibit the WhatsApp chats, to which the wife raised an objection. The learned Family Court has rejected the wife's objection and has allowed the husband to exhibit the WhatsApp chats. Being aggrieved by this order of the Family Court, the instant misc. petition has been filed by wife.

24. The Bombay High Court also dealt with the similar aspect in the case of Deepali Santosh Lokhande v. Santosh Vasantrao reported in MANU/MH/3502/2017 and held as under:

"9. A cumulative reading of section 14 and section 20 of the Family Courts Act, takes within its ambit the restricted applications of the provisions of the Evidence Act qua the documentary evidence which includes electronic evidence, whether or not the same is relevant or admissible, if in the opinion of the Family Court such evidence would assist the Family Court to deal effectively with the matrimonial dispute. Considering the above object and the intention of the legislature, in providing for a departure, from the normal rules of evidence under the Evidence Act, in my opinion, there was no embargo for the learned Judge of the Family Court to accept and exhibit the documents as sought by the petitioner-wife. Ultimately, it is the absolute power and authority of the Family Court either to accept or disregard a particular evidence in finally adjudicating the matrimonial dispute. However, to say that a party would be precluded from placing such documents on record and or such documents can be refused to be exhibited unless they are proved, in my opinion, goes contrary to the object of section 14 of the Family Courts Act."

35. In view of the discussion made above, this court is of the opinion that the Legislature, being fully aware of the principals of admissibility of evidence, has enacted Section 14 in order to expand that principle in so far as disputes relating to marriage and family affairs are concerned. The Family Court is thereby freed of restrictions of the strict law of evidence. The only test under Section 14 for a Family Court to receive the evidence, whether collected legitimately or otherwise, is based upon its subjective satisfaction that the evidence would assist it to deal effectually with the dispute.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)

Misc. Petition No. 3395 Of 2023

Decided On: 16.06.2025

Anjali  Vs. Raman 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ashish Shroti, J.

Citation:  MANU/MP/1611/2025

Print Page

How to prove electronic evidence including WhatsApp posts, CCTV footage, digital camera photographs, and digital pictures under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?

 The digital transformation of Indian society has fundamentally altered the evidentiary landscape in judicial proceedings, requiring courts to adapt their evaluation frameworks to accommodate the complexities of electronic evidence authentication. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 represents a paradigmatic shift in how Indian courts approach the admissibility and proof of electronic documents, moving beyond the colonial-era constraints of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 to establish a comprehensive framework specifically designed for the digital age. This transformation has particular significance for courts dealing with increasingly prevalent forms of electronic evidence, including WhatsApp communications, CCTV footage, digital camera photographs, and various forms of digital pictures that have become central to modern litigation. The judicial system's approach to these digital records requires a nuanced understanding of both legal requirements and technological realities, as courts must balance procedural rigor with practical considerations to ensure that justice is not compromised by overly technical requirements.

Evolution of Electronic Evidence Framework: IEA 1872 vs BSA 2023

Print Page

Supreme court: Police Shouldn't Serve S.41A CrPC/S.35 BNSS Notice Through WhatsApp Or Electronic Means

 Having heard the parties and having deliberated upon the aforesaid submissions, this Court in furtherance of Paras. 100.2, 100.8 and 100.9 of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51, and its previous directions contained in earlier orders, deems it necessary to issue the following directions :

a) All the States/UTs must issue a Standing Order to their respective Police machinery to issue notices under Section 41-A of CrPC, 1973/Section 35 of BNSS, 2023 only through the mode of service as prescribed under the CrPC, 1973/BNSS, 2023. It is made amply clear that service of notice through WhatsApp or other electronic modes cannot be considered or recognised as an alternative or substitute to the mode of service recognised and prescribed under the CrPC, 1973/BNSS, 2023.

b) All the States/UTs while issuing Standing Orders to their respective Police machinery relating to Section 41-A of CrPC, 1973/Section 35 of BNSS, 2023 must be issued strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Delhi High Court in Rakesh Kumar v. Vijayanta Arya (DCP) & Ors., 2021 SCC Online Del 5629 and Amandeep Singh Johar v. State (NCT Delhi), 2018 SCC Online Del 13448, both of which were upheld by this Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51.

c) All the States/UTs must issue an additional Standing Order to their respective Police machinery to issue notices under Section 160 of CrPC, 1973/Section 179 of BNSS, 2023 and Section 175 of CrPC, 1973/Section 195 of BNSS, 2023 to the accused persons or otherwise, only through the mode of service as prescribed under the CrPC, 1973/BNSS, 2023.

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Miscellaneous Application No. 2034/2022 in MA 1849/2021 in

SLP(Crl) No. 5191/2021

SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL Vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR. 

Date : 21-01-2025 These applications were called on for hearing

today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

Print Page

Supreme Court: Police Shouldn't Serve S.41A CrPC/S.35 BNSS Notice Through WhatsApp Or Electronic Means

 DIRECTIONS

Having heard the parties and having deliberated upon the aforesaid submissions, this Court in furtherance of Paras. 100.2, 100.8 and 100.9 of Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51, and its previous directions contained in earlier orders, deems it necessary to issue the following directions :

a) All the States/UTs must issue a Standing Order to their respective Police machinery to issue notices under Section 41-A of CrPC, 1973/Section 35 of BNSS, 2023 only through the mode of service as prescribed under the CrPC, 1973/BNSS, 2023. It is made amply clear that service of notice through WhatsApp or other electronic modes cannot be considered or recognized as an alternative or substitute to the mode of service recognized and prescribed under the CrPC, 1973/BNSS, 2023.

b) All the States/UTs while issuing Standing Orders to their respective Police machinery relating to Section 41-A of CrPC, 1973/Section 35 of BNSS, 2023must be issued strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Delhi High Court in Rakesh Kumar v. Vijayanta Arya (DCP) & Ors., 2021 SCC Online Del 5629 and Amandeep Singh Johar v. State (NCT Delhi), 2018 SCC Online Del 13448, both of which were upheld by this Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51.

 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Miscellaneous Application No. 2034/2022 in MA 1849/2021 in

SLP(Crl) No. 5191/2021

SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL Vs  CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR. 

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH

 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

Date : 21-01-2025 These applications were called on for hearing

today.

Print Page

Can Management Initiate a Disciplinary Enquiry Against an Employee for Expressing his Grievances in Messages Sent in a Private WhatsApp Group?"

When even prisoners have fundamental rights and it has been declared by the Apex Court that Part III of the Constitution does not stop at the prison gates, it would be ridiculous to suggest that the moment a person becomes a bank employee, he has to bid good-bye to Article 19(1)(a). The fundamental right insofar as it applies to the petitioner might have lost a bit of sheen but its core would remain with all vigor.

10.There is something called “right to vent”. Every employee or a member of an organization will have some issue or the other with the management. To nurture a sense of grievance is quite natural. It is in the interest of the organization that the complaints find expression and ventilation. It will have a cathartic effect. If in the process, the image of the organization is affected, then the management can step in but not till then.

11.Let us assume that a group of employees are having a chat in one of their homes. So long as it is a private chat, it cannot attract the regulatory frame work of the management. The common law principle is “everyman's home is his castle”. If bar room gossip is published, that would definitely attract contempt of Court. But then, so long as it remains private, cognizance cannot be taken. The world has become a global village. It is connected by digital technology. The principles applicable to a chat in a home can be applied to what takes place in an encrypted virtual platform that has restricted access. Such an approach alone will be in consonance with liberal democratic traditions. We are yet to enter into the worlds envisaged by AldousHuxley in “Brave New World” and George Orwell in “1984”. What the respondent proposes amounts to thought-policing.

It is well settled that a charge memo can be quashed if assuming that all the acts attributed to the delinquent are taken to be true, still, it would not be amount to act of misconduct. As already held, the petitioner is very much possessed of the right to vent. The opinion was not expressed publicly. It was shared among the members of a private WhatsApp group. The management has not disclosed as to how they became aware of the post. It has not been shown as to how the bank's interest has been affected. There are some political leaders who make statements that are in bad taste and yet refuse to apologize. When I indicated that while the petitioner can criticise the management, the language also matters, he readily apologized. In these circumstances, the act committed by the petitioner cannot amount to misconduct. The impugned charge memo is quashed. {Para 20}

 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

W.P(MD)No.9754 of 2023

and

WMP(MD)No.8689 of 2023

A.Lakshminarayanan  Vs. The Assistant General Manager

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

Pronounced on : 08.08.2023.

Print Page

Whether Advocate can be held guilty for cheating before Lok adalat through Whatsapp Video Call?

 The applicant is thus alleged of being a part of the entire episode of impersonating Mrs.Gidwani in the consent terms which were filed in S.C. Suit No. 3032/2019.Tilak Prima facie, it can be seen that the applicant filed his vakalatnama and represented the so-called Ms.Pushpa Gidwani for the first time on 9/3/2020, and he was having her mobile number and as per the direction of the Panel Members of the Lok Adalat on 12/12/2020 he made a phone call on the said number and one lady appeared at the other end, who had introduced herself as Pushpa Gidwani and she was known to the applicant as the defendant in the Suit. The applicant claim innocence by stating that as a lawyer, he was not expected to go into the detail Identification as once the client approached and introduced herself to be so and so, there is no reason to disbelieve and even the vakalatnama which was signed by her was given to him which he filed in the Court. {Para 6}

7 There is no reason to disbelieve the applicant, as a lawyer was satisfied that the vakalatnama given to him and chose to represent the defendant in the Suit and even signed the consent terms. However, the learned APP state that the applicant has refused to divert the phone number of Gidwani to whom he had made a video call. Mr.Nikam state that the applicant shall render his co-operation to the Investigating Officer.In the above circumstances, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary and he deserve protection by way of interim order.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2174 of 2022

Date of Order: 18.08.2022

Rakesh Shrinath Dubey  Vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Bharati Dangre, J.

Citation: MANU/MHOR/121450/2022,2023 Lawweb (Bom HC ) 16.

Print Page

Can a court issue a non-bailable warrant against the accused in a criminal case if a summons were issued to him on Whatsapp?

 The Crl.M.C is filed aggrieved by the non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner. The specific case put forth by the petitioner is that the summons, alleged to have been sent through WhatsApp to his mobile phone, had never reached him, as he has not downloaded the WhatsApp application on his phone.

4. The above provisions do not provide for service of summons

through WhatsApp. No doubt, the revolutionary changes in the field of communication calls for a more pragmatic approach regarding the mode and manner of service of summons.

6. In the case at hand, the summons is stated to have been

issued through WhatsApp, which is not an accepted mode of service.

As such, the court should not have issued non-bailable warrant against the petitioner on the assumption that he had failed to appear after receiving the summons.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

ANOOP JACOB Vs STATE OF KERALA

Crl.M.C.No.1658 of 2021

Dated this the 9th day of April, 2021

PRESENT

 MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

Print Page

Can the WhatsApp group admin be held criminally liable for objectionable posts of a group member?

 A group administrator has limited power of removing a member of the group or adding other members of the group. Once the group is created, the functioning of the administrator and that of the members is at par with each other, except the power of

adding or deleting members to the group. The Administrator of a

Whatsapp group does not have power to regulate, moderate or censor the content before it is posted on the group. But, if a member of the Whatsapp group posts any content, which is actionable under law, such person can be held liable under relevant provisions of law. In the absence of specific penal provision creating vicarious liability, an administrator of a Whatsapp group cannot be held liable for objectionable content posted by a member of a group. A group administrator cannot be held vicariously liable for an act of member of the group, who posts objectionable content, unless it is shown that there was common intention or pre-arranged plan acting in concert pursuant to such plan by such member of a Whatsapp group and the administrator. Common intention cannot be established in a case of Whatsapp service user merely acting as a group administrator. When a person creates a Whatsapp group, he cannot be expected to presume or to have advance knowledge of the criminal acts of the member of the group.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 573 OF 2016

Kishor  Chintaman Tarone,  Vs The State of Maharashtra, 

CORAM : Z.A.HAQ AND AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED : 01.03.2021.

(Per : Amit B. Borkar, J.)

Print Page

Supreme Court: Service of Summons may be effected by e-mail, FAX, instant messaging services, such as WhatsApp, Telegram, etc

I.A. No. 48461/2020- Service of all notices, summons

and exchange of pleadings

Service of notices, summons and exchange of

pleadings/documents, is a requirement of virtually

every legal proceeding. Service of notices, summons

and pleadings etc. have not been possible during the

period of lockdown because this involves visits to

post offices, courier companies or physical delivery

of notices, summons and pleadings. We, therefore,

consider it appropriate to direct that such

services of all the above may be effected by e-mail,

FAX, commonly used instant messaging services, such

as WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal etc. However, if a

party intends to effect service by means of said

instant messaging services, we direct that in

addition thereto, the party must also effect service

of the same document/documents by e-mail,

simultaneously on the same date.

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SUO MOTO WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 3/2020

IN RE COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION 

VERSUS

Respondent(s)

IA No. 48672/2020 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS

IA No. 48375/2020 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION

IA No. 48461/2020 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION

IA No. 48673/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT

IA No. 48374/2020 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION

IA No. 48416/2020 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION

IA No. 48408/2020 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION

IA No. 48671/2020 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT)

Date : 10-07-2020 These applications were called on

for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Print Page

Whether sending the personal messages on WhatsApp will amount to the utterance of obscene words in a public place?

Thus, the literature published on Website clearly indicates

that the WhatsApp messages sent by one person to another are end-toend

encrypted which means, only the sender of the message and the

recipient of the message can read the messages. It also claims that

nobody in between, not even WhatsApp, can read these messages.

These messages are secured with lock and only the recipient and

sender have special key needed to unlock and read them. It further

claims that every message sent has its own unique lock and key. It

also claims that the WhatsApp does not store the messages on server,

once they are delivered. Thus, this literature available on the Website

of the WhatsApp, makes it abundantly clearly that such types of

messages are strictly personal messages and nobody even the

WhatsApp can have access to these messages which means nobody

except the sender and the recipient can read the messages. Thus,

when these messages cannot be read by others, it ipso-facto goes to

show that no third person nor even WhatsApp can have access to those

messages. Therefore, WhatsApp cannot be a public place if messages

are exchanged on personal accounts of two persons. If these messages

had been posted on WhatsApp Group, in that case the same could

have been called as public place because all the members of the

group, will have access to those messages. It is not the prosecution

case that the alleged obscene messages were posted on WhatsApp

Group of which the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 and others are

the members. Therefore, sending the personal messages on WhatsApp

will not amount to utterance of obscene words in public place.

Therefore, Section 294 of the I.P.C. cannot be invoked.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 557 OF 2018

Nivrutti  Hariram Gaikwad, Vs The State of Maharashtra,

CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE &

M.G. SEWLIKAR, JJ.

Dated : 11.03.2020

JUDGMENT : [PER : M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.]

Print Page

Whether Rape accused can be acquitted on basis of Whatsapp chat between him and prosecutrix?

On carefully perusing the impugned judgment and after hearing the counsel for the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any error in acquitting the respondent No. 2. The printout of the chats and the transcription of the telephonic conversation between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 placed on record by the defence and duly admitted by the petitioner during her cross examination amply demonstrate that she had of her own free will and without any inducement from the respondent No. 2, consented for a physical relationship with him. Thereafter, she had second thoughts about marrying him and had in fact told him that she can get married to him only after her elder sister gets married. Later on, the petitioner had threatened the respondent No. 2 that she will defame him and falsely implicate him.

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(Before Hima Kohli and Manoj Kumar Ohri, JJ.)

Smt. Ritu @ Shikha Kashyap  v. State & Anr

Crl. L.P 817/2018

Decided on December 11, 2018

Citation: 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12914

Print Page

How to prove notice sent in PDF Format Delivered Through WhatsApp?

1)  The Respondent to the Execution Application has been

evading service of this Notice under Order XXI Rule 22 of the Code

of Civil Procedure 1908. He was served by an authorized officer of

the Claimant, Ms Fatema Kalyanwala by sending a PDF and

message to his mobile number as a WhatsApp message. For the

purposes of service of Notice under Order XXI Rule 22, I will

accept this. I do so because the icon indicators clearly show that not

only was the message and its attachment delivered to the

Respondent’s number but that both were opened.

2)  A print-out of the WhatApp message is taken on record and

marked “N” for identification with today’s date. The second print

out is of the WhatsApp contact number of the Respondent. This

shows his contact number. This is also taken on record and marked

“N2” for identification with today’s date. This is sufficient for the

purposes of service of Notice under Order XXI Rule 22.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

NOTICE NO. 1148 OF 2015

IN

EXECUTION APPLICATION NO. 1196 OF 2015

SBI Cards & Payments Services Pvt Ltd  V Rohidas Jadhav.

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J

DATED: 11th June 2018, 

Citation: 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1262

Print Page

When prosecution for posting of emoji on whatsapp group can be quashed?

 When no cognizable offence is found on the face of the

complaint, this Court is of the view that the First Information Report is

liable to be quashed.  In the case on hand the petitioners and the second

respondent are the members of a whatsapp group.  Everyone has a right to

express their feelings and share their idea.  The face of crying smiley is to

comment about the idea of second respondent in publishing or uploading a

video of complaints made by BSNL customers regarding deficiencies in BSNL  

coverage.  Every person has got indefeasible right to express what he feels.

The petitioners who are working as executives and staff of BSNL along with

second respondent ought not to have indulged in posting such emoji in the

interest of BSNL since whatsapp group is formed to promote team spirit.  Such

complaints by the second respondent who is working as a Divisional Engineer

(Rural) will pave way for other complications and friction among members

which will be detriment to the interest of BSNL.  This Court wanted the

petitioners to express their regret as the de-facto complainant in her

individual perception felt offended by the posting of such crying smiley.

Accordingly the first petitioner has filed an affidavit on behalf of all the

petitioners, recording their regret for posting such smileys.  The matter

should rest here and it will be neither in the interest of justice to permit

such complaints to stay.  When the complaint does not disclose any offence as

indicated above, the petitioners will be put to serious prejudice and

hardship in case they are forced to face trial.  Hence, this Court is

inclined to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.206 of 2017 on the

file of the first respondent. 

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT 

Pronounced on: 05.06.2018  

CORAM   

 MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR           

CRL.O.P.(MD)No.3110 of 2017   

and 

Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos. 2366 and 6773 of 2017 

I.Linga Bhaskar -Vs- The State through the Inspector of Police,

                                           

Print Page

Whether Whatsapp forward can be treated as document as per Evidence Act?

As noticed above, the petitioners are not privy to any information except an alleged WhatsApp circulated post. They have not stated that they have in any manner tried to even ascertain as to whether any of the allegations contained in the petition are true. Nothing has been pleaded or shown as to how they could have even formed a reasonable belief that the post allegedly circulated on WhatsApp group could have any authenticity.

26. The petition has been filed making very serious allegations on mere hearsay without petitioners being to show that they had any occasion to form any reasonable belief.

27. The petitioners in paragraph 5 of the petition state that "Though the petitioners are none to say that the said suicide note is gospel truth or that the allegations contained therein are so, yet, a vast majority of Indians, including members of the NLC and the petitioners herein believe that the said suicide note carries great amount of credibility........".

28. The petitioners are not able to state as to how they form such a belief. The petitioners have also not shown as to how they are connected or in any manner related to the said allegations made in the petition.

29. Annexure - A does not even qualify as a document in terms of the Evidence Act, 1872, in as much as, neither the original nor the copy of the original has been produced. It is an admitted position that the petitioners have not seen original and have had no occasion to even compare Annexure - A with the original.

Delhi High Court

National Lawyers Campaign For ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 May, 2017

Print Page

Whether it is permissible to effect service of summons by Whatsapp,Email and text message?

The plaintiffs are permitted to serve the defendant No.9 Ashok Kumar
Agarwal by text message as well as through Whatsapp as well as by email
and to file affidavit of service.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CS(COMM) 1601/2016
TATA SONS LIMITED & ORS
V
JOHN DOE(S) & ORS 
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
O R D E R
Dated: 27.04.2017

Print Page

Whether Group Admin of online forum is Liable For Defamatory Texts Made By A Member?

 Similarly, I am unable to understand as to how the Administrator of a Group can be held liable for defamation even if any, by the statements made by a member of the Group. To make an Administrator of an online platform liable for defamation would be like making the manufacturer of the newsprint on which defamatory statements are published liable for defamation. When an online platform is created, the creator thereof cannot expect any of the members thereof to indulge in defamation and defamatory statements made by any member of the group cannot make the Administrator liable therefor. It is not as if without the Administrator's approval of each of the statements, the statements cannot be posted by any of the members of the Group on the said platform.

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(Before Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.)

Ashish Bhalla 

v.

Suresh Chawdhary & Ors

CS (OS) No. 188/2016; IA No. 4901/2016 (u/O 39 R-1&2 CPC); IA No. 8988/2016 (of D-2 u/O 7 R-11 CPC); IA No. 9553/2016 (of defendants No. 1 and 3 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC); and IA No. 9554/2016 (of defendant No. 6 under order VII Rule 11 CPC); and IA No. 11830/2016 (under Order I Rule 10 CPC)

Decided on November 29, 2016

Citation:

2016 SCC OnLine Del 6329

Print Page