Sections 188 IPC and 66-E IT Act Quashed; FIR Continues for Other Offences
In a significant ruling, the Gujarat High Court has partially quashed an FIR against Rahul Babulal Purohit, involving charges under Sections 188 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 66-E of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The judgment was delivered by Justice P. M. Raval on June 16, 2026, in response to a Criminal Miscellaneous Application filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the FIR registered by the Sector 7 Police Station, Gandhinagar.
The case originated when an FIR was lodged by respondent Bhautikbhai Govindbhai Patel, alleging that a candidate, Hardik Babulal Purohit, was caught using a mobile phone to photograph a question paper and send it to his brother, Rahul Purohit, during an examination. The FIR invoked Section 188 IPC for disobedience of a public servant's order and Section 66-E of the IT Act for violating privacy by transmitting images.
Justice Raval, after examining the submissions, ruled that the instructions published by the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC) do not qualify as an order under Section 188 IPC, as they are not a promulgation by a lawfully empowered public servant. Additionally, the court emphasized that cognizance of an offence under Section 188 IPC requires a written complaint by a public servant, as mandated by Section 195 of the Cr.P.C., which was not followed in this case. Consequently, the charge under Section 188 IPC was quashed.
Regarding the IT Act, the court found that sending photographs of a question paper via WhatsApp does not constitute capturing or transmitting the image of a private area as described under Section 66-E. Therefore, the application of Section 66-E was deemed inappropriate, leading to its quashing from the FIR.
However, the court clarified that the FIR could proceed concerning other offences that may be applicable, as determined by the investigating officer. The ruling vacated the interim relief and made the rule absolute to the extent of quashing Sections 188 IPC and 66-E IT Act.
The decision highlights the necessity for proper legal adherence in invoking statutory provisions and underscores the importance of distinguishing between administrative instructions and legally enforceable orders.
Bottom line:-
FIR lodged under Sections 188 and 120B of IPC and Section 66-E of the Information Technology Act quashed to the extent of Sections 188 and 66-E as they were not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code Section 188, Section 120B, Information Technology Act Section 66-E, Criminal Procedure Code Section 195
Rahul Babulal Purohit v. State of Gujarat, (Gujarat) : Law Finder Doc id # 2928969
