Before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
U.T., Chandigarh.
1. Rajinder Paul son of Late Shri Kali Ram, Managing
Director, India Market Softech Ltd. (IMSL), Bay
No.844, 8th Floor, Tower A, Bestech Business
Tower, Sect or 66, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
2. Dolly Sabharwal wife of Shri Kapil Sabharwal,
Director, India Market Softech Ltd. (IMSL), Bay
No.844, 8th Floor, Tower A, Bestech Business
Tower, Sect or 66, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
3. Kapil Sabharwal son of Shri Brij Raj Sabharwal,
Director, India Market Softech Ltd. (IMSL), Bay
No.844, 8th Floor, Tower A, Bestech Business
Tower, Sect or 66, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
4. India Market Softech Ltd. (IMSL), Bay No.844, 8th
Floor, Tower A, Bestech Business Tower, Sect or
66, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
....Complainants
Versus
1. Gurcharan Jha son of Shri ___________, resident of
House No.___________
2. Shivam Iyer son of Shri __________, resident of
House No.__________
3. Lovedeep Singh son of Shri __________, resident of
House No._____________ .
Complaint under Section 66-A of the
Information Technology Act, 2000 along with
Section 499, 500, 506, 509 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 for punishment for violation of
privacy, punishment for publishing or
transmitting obscene material in electronic
form etc. in electronic form and words,
gesture or act intended to insult the modesty
of a woman.
Respectfully Showeth:
1. That the Complainant No.1 is the Managing
Director of India Market Softech Ltd. (IMSL), Bay
No.844, 8th Floor, Tower A, Bestech Business Tower,
Sect or 66, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Complainant No.4. The
Complainant Nos.2 and 3 are the Directors of
Complainant No.4 and the Complainant No.4 is a Limited
Company. The complainants are law abiding citizens of
India. The Complainant Nos.1 to 3 being the Managing
Director and Directors of the Complainant No.4 company
are responsible for the day-to-day functioning of the
Complainant No.4 Company.
2. That the Complainant Nos.1 to 3 are regular
users of internet and social Networking sites
especially Facebook. The Complainant Nos.1 to 3 never
faced any problem in using this website i.e. Facebook.
However, recently the Complainant Nos.1 to 3 started
receiving explicit comments and post on the official
page of the Complainant No.4 Company. The said posts
also contained defamatory material against Complainant
Nos.1 to 3.
3. That on 25.8.2019 the Complainant Nos.1 to 3
received defaming and unpleasant comments on the
official page of the Complainant No.4 Company.
4. That the aforesaid defamatory comments
disgraced, scandalized the reputation of the
Complainant No.4 Company as well as Complainant Nos.1
to 3 by posting untrue, shameful and objectionable
pictures of the Complainant Nos.1 to 3 i.e. the
Managing Director and Directors of the Complainant No.4
Company with their photographs which were taken without
taking the permission of the Complainant Nos.1 to 3.
5. That again on 29.08.2019 another fierce,
repulsive, obnoxious and disagreeable photographs with
the caption stating “Braking News Of IT Fraud
Directors” were posted by the Respondent No.1 by using
the fake identity ‘Sonu Sharma’.
6. That, in fact, the Respondent No.1 used the
fake Facebook identify in the name of ‘Sonu Sharma’
whereas it was the handiwork of the Respondent No.1
alone. The respondent No.1 along with Respondent Nos.2
and 3 started making libelous and defamatory comments
on the post to prejudice the prestige and social status
of the Complainant No.4 Company and Complainant Nos.1
to 3 who are its Managing Director and Directors.
7. That further, the Respondent No.1, using the
fake Facebook identify as ‘Sonu Sharma’ published life
threatening comments, “If We Got Them We Will Teach
Them A Lesson By Ourselves” against the Complainant
No.2 Dolly Sabharwal. In support to the aforesaid
threatening comments, the Respondent Nos.2 and 3
publicly revealed the residential address of
Complainant Nos.2 to 3 and their families putting them
to great peril.
8. That the ongoing process of threatening the
Complainant Nos.1 to 3 did not stop here and the
Respondent No.3 further posted comments on the Facebook
page that, “Give There Contact No I Will Make Them
Correct By My On”. The Complainant No.3 became more
anxious and concerned when she received a Text message
on the Official Page of the Complainant No.4 Company
by Respondent No.3.
9. That it is pertinent to mention here that the
Complainant No.4 Company is pursuing a legal case of
fraud with some employees in the Complainant No.4
Company who manipulated the secret data and revealed
the confidential data of the Complainant No.4 Company
which resulted in the closure of the operations of the
Complainant No.4 Company in India due to which Company
had to face huge financial crisis.
10. That the Respondent No.1, using the fake
identity, namely, ‘Sonu Sharma’ again commented on the
official Facebook page of the Complainant No.4 Company
claiming that “I Sonu Sharma and IMSL Are Fighting A
Legal Case” which is false and baseless as there is no
employee with the name ‘Sonu Sharma’ found in the
official record of the Complainant No.4 Company.
11. That the ongoing efforts of the respondents
on the official Facebook page of the Complainant No.4
Company is being done only to defame, malign and harass
the reputation of the Complainant No.4 Company and the
Complainant Nos.1 to 3 i.e. its Managing Director and
Directors amongst the public, relatives and friends.
The whole process defamation and threatening being done
is only to indecorous the character of the women in the
society.
12. That the Respondent No.1, who posed himself
as ‘Sonu Sharma’ on the Facebook page of the
Complainant No.4 Company, also came at the residence of
the Complainant No.2 along with 4-5 goons on 22.9.2019
and threatened the Complainant No.2. The Complainant
No.2 had also lodged a complaint to the police at
Derabassi with regard to this incident. However, no
action has so far been taken by the police as well as
the Cyber Cell of the police.
13. That the act of the respondents falls under
the definition of Section 66-A of the Information
Technology Act, 2000 along with Section 499 read with
Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
14. That the respondents are liable to be charged
under Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act,
2000 along with along with 499 read with Section 500 of
the Indian Penal Code.
15. That under the Information Technology Act,
2000, this Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to
entertain and try the present complaint.
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that
the respondents may kindly be summoned, tried,
convicted and sentenced under Section 66-A of the
Information Technology Act, 2000 along with Section 499
read with Section 500 as well as Section 506 and 509 of
the Indian Penal Code, in the interest of justice.
Complainant
Through Counsel:
Place : Chandigarh (Pradeep Bedi)(Sharad Gautam)
Dated : _________ Advocates
