Fact
This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the
order passed by Sh. Rajesh Aggarwal, the Adjudicating Officer under the Information
Technology Act, 2000, Government of Maharashtra in Complaint No. 2/2010 preferred by the
petitioners before the said officer.
The petitioners preferred the aforesaid complaint against, inter alia, Ms. Madhvika Joshi,
Respondent No.1. Petitioner No. 2 was married to Ms. Madhvika Joshi, whereas petitioner No. 1
is the father-in-law of Ms. Madhvika Joshi. Ms. Madhvika Joshi accessed the e-mail accounts of
both the petitioners and printed chat sessions and e-mails from these accounts, which she has
used to pursue her case filed against the petitioners under Section 498A IPC.
Issue – Whether Ms. Madhvika Joshi is liable to pay damages under section 43 of IT Act?
Observation & Judgement:
➢ In the present case, the petitioners evidently have not lead any evidence to show as to
what damage they have suffered on account of the retrieval of their e-mails and chat
sessions by respondent No. 1. These e-mails and chat sessions have been used by
respondent No. 1 in her case lodged against the petitioners under Section 498A IPC.
➢ The petitioners cannot have any grievance because the respondent No.1 has lead in
evidence of the materials collected by her in support of her case by breaching Section 43
of the I.T. Act. All the consequences flowing on account of registration of the case under
Section 498A IPC against the petitioners are remote and indirect consequences. In any
event, it is too premature to conclude that respondent No.1 is accountable for the so
called damages.
➢ This being the position, I find no merit in this petition so far as the petitioners claim for
damages has been rejected. In case it is held by the concerned Court that the proceedings
under Section 498A have been maliciously instituted, it shall be open to the petitioners, at
that stage, to take appropriate steps to claim damages against the respondent No. 1 for
loses or damages directly arising from such conduct of respondent No.1.
