- (1.)Heard the learned advocate appearing for the respective parties. Pursuant to our earlier direction, Superintendent of Police, Nadia as well as the Investigating Officer of the present case are personally present before this court. Their presence is noted and dispensed with at present.
(2.)The gist of the allegations in the FIR relate to a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and his wife. It has been alleged in the FIR owing to such discord and with the object of defaming and denigrating her, the petitioner had posted objectionable pictures of his wife on a social network platform and had widely circulated such materials. Although FIR was registered inter alia on such accusations, offences under Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act were not added to the FIR and the investigation was conducted by an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in violation of the provisions of Section 78 of the Information Technology Act.
(3.)Explanation has been filed on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Nadia wherein it is stated that offences under Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act have been added and investigation is presently being conducted by the Inspector-in-charge of the concerned police station. Inspector-in-charge of the concerned police station has also been directed to rectify her mistake in omitting to add offences under the Information Technology Act to the FIR and entrust investigation to an officer not below the rank of Inspector. Such explanation is accepted and kept with the record.