Advanced Search Results

XXXXXX vs Sri. Balamanjunathaswamiji

Court : Karnataka

FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 4, 6, 11(iv) AND 12 OF POCSO ACT, 2012, SECTION 66(E) AND 67(A) OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2000, SECTION 376, 354(A)(1)(i), 354(A)(1)(ii), 417, 342, 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC SECTION 3 OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS (PREVENTION OF … 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘the POCSO Act’ for short), Section 66E of the IT Act and Sections 376, 354A(1)(i), 354A(1)(ii), 506 r/w 34 of the IPC. While filing the

Neha Rafiq Chachadi Vs. The State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka Dharwad

Subject : Right to Information

case.6. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.7. Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 reads as under:"66E. Punishment for violation of privacy Whoever, intentionally or knowingly … REGISTRATION OF THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CITY CEN CR. NO.21/2019 BELAGAVI, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC.66E OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000 BY THE CITY CEN POLICE PENDING ON THE FILE OF III JMFC BELAGAVI.-. 2 - NC:2023. KHC-D:6526 CRL.P

Abhishek Mishra vs State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

No.471 of 2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 354-C, 354-D, 504, 506 and 509 of the IPC, Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, … 354-D, 354-C, 504, 506, 509 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989 AND SEC.66-E OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000 (ANNEXURE-D) AND ETC.,THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.06.2025, COMING ON FOR

Vikram Vincent Vs. The State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Right to Information

for offences punishable under Section 498A, 377, 34 of the IPC and Sections 66E and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘the Act’ for 7 short). Since all the incidents had happened at Bangalore, the Superintendent of Police, Raipur

K.R.Ravi Rathinam Vs. 1.The Director General of Police,

Court : Chennai

Subject : Land Acquisition

The averments in the complaint and his statement would not make out an offence u/s 66B of the Information technology Act 2000. Section 66E of the Information technology Act 2000 deals with punishment for violation of privacy. Whoever, intentionally or knowingly captures,

Smt Richa Mishra Vs. The Commissioner Of Police

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Right to Information

for offences punishable under Section 498A, 377, 34 of the IPC and Sections 66E and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘the Act’ for 7 short). Since all the incidents had happened at Bangalore, the Superintendent of Police, Raipur

Nayaz Phasha vs the State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 384, 195A, 511 R/W 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND 66E OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000 REGISTERED BY THE SIDDAPURA POLICE NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,

Muhammed Rafi @ Rafeeque @Manu vs State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

offences punishable under Secs.392, 511 of Sec.376, 506 (i) of the Indian Penal Code & Sec.66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000, on thebasis of the First Information Statement given by the 2 nd respondent (lady de facto complainant) on … in Amankumar’s case (supra) [AIR (2004) SC 1497],which read as follows :“8. The plea relating to applicability of Section 376 read with Section 511, IPC needs careful consideration. In every crime, there is first, intention to commit,

Praveenkumar Vs The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police

Court : Chennai

Reno 7 (telegram app.) After the investigation the 1st respondent police altered the offence under section 66E of Information Technology Act 2000, section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act 2002 and section 79 & 351(3) of BNS

Thajuddeen E B vs State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short ‘the SC/ST (PA) Act’) and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short ‘IT Act’).4. The petitioner as well as the victim are lawyers by profession. The prosecution case