The biased attitude of Chennai City Police which is not acting in accordance with law, but as per the diktats of right wing forces.
Take the two recent sensational cases for instance. 1/n
Take the two recent sensational cases for instance. 1/n
The first case refers to Karuppar Kootam, a youtube channel, which had uploaded a video, allegedly denigrating Hindu god Murugan. The complaint was filed by Advocate RC Paul Kanagaraj, a BJP leader on 13 July 2020. 2/n
In his complaint he had sought registration of case against one Surendhra Natarajan, who spoke in the video.
On the next day(14 July 2020) even before regn of FIR, police had went to the residence of the said Surendhra Natarajan, who by that time had gone underground. 3/n
On the next day(14 July 2020) even before regn of FIR, police had went to the residence of the said Surendhra Natarajan, who by that time had gone underground. 3/n
However, the police arrested one Senthilvasan, who is only Technical Advisor and not responsible for the contents of the YouTube video.
On 16 July 2020, the police arrested on Surendhra Natarajan, who actually surrendered in Pondicherry and was brought to Chennai. 4/n
On 16 July 2020, the police arrested on Surendhra Natarajan, who actually surrendered in Pondicherry and was brought to Chennai. 4/n
Subsequently, police had arrested 3 more persons who are alleged to be behind this video.
Now let us come to the case of one Maridoss, an YouTuber promoted by super star Rajinikanth. Maridoss, who had been in the forefront of spreading fake news and promoting communal hatred 5/n
Now let us come to the case of one Maridoss, an YouTuber promoted by super star Rajinikanth. Maridoss, who had been in the forefront of spreading fake news and promoting communal hatred 5/n
had uploaded a video on 10 July 2020, in which he claimed that certain anchors in News18 Tamil Channel are pursuing anti-Hindu agenda in the channel and asked his followers to send complaints to News18 management 6/n
The said Maridass on 10 July 2020 posted a tweet claiming that News18 management has taken cognizance of his complaint and sent a reply to him. Maridass claimed that one Vinay Sarwagi, Editor in News18 has responded with an email. 7/n
The complainant in this case, Vinay Sarwagi says that the email is forged and the email mentioned by Maridass was never sent by h) im.
The complainant Vinay Sarwagi lists out several charges against Maridass and asks a case be registered against “Maridhass” 8/n
The complainant Vinay Sarwagi lists out several charges against Maridass and asks a case be registered against “Maridhass” 8/n
The Central Crime Branch of Chennai city police, after sleeping over the complaint of Vinay Sarwagi dated 17 July 2020, and registered an FIR only on 22 July 2020 five full days after the complaint. Details we will see later.
The prayer in the complaint of RC Paul Kanagaraj 9/n
The prayer in the complaint of RC Paul Kanagaraj 9/n
against Karuppar Kootam YouTube channel reads thus “Hence I request you to initiate criminal proceedings against the You Tube Channel, Karuppar Koottam, its speaker Surendra Natarajan and others under the provisions of Indian Penal Laws and direct the Cyber Cell to block the 10/n
channel under Section 69 A of the Information Technology Act at the earliest to avert the devotees unrest.” In spite of this vague complaint, CCB of Chennai City Police had registered case against Surendhran under sections u/s.153,153A (1) (a),295A,505(1)(b), 505(2) 11/n
Subsequently Section 67 of IT Act has been added. The police had sought 5 days police custody of two among the five accused in Karuppar Kootam case citing the following reasons. 12/n
“it is suspected that content creation, video uploading may have involved like minded individuals, and they are to be identified and their motive, target, funding and plan to be identified "However, in spite of the specific offences mentioned in the complaint of Sarwagi, 13/n
CCB of Chennai City Police has identified only offences of forgery, using forgery for harming the reputation, using forged document as genuine, 465, 469, 471 of IPC and dishonestly receiving stolen computer resource or communication – 66B of IT Act read with 43 for 14/n
hacking. But, interestingly, City Police has not bothered to name any accused in the FIR and against the column accused : only an email id is mentioned.15/n
The implication of section 471 IPC (for using forged document as genuine) alone is sufficient to include the name of the said Maridhass in the FIR. 16/n
Further, city police has included the section 43 of IT Act to be read with 66B, however, carefully avoided including Section 66F of the IT Act. 17/n
Section 66F of the IT Act says, whoever commits hacking, with an intention to cause injury to public order, decency or morality of an individual, defamation or incitement to an offence, commits an offence under Section 66F 18/n
The alleged offence of Maridhass squarely falls under 66F, if the inclusion of 43 read with 66B of police is taken on face value. 19/n
But the reason the police chose to include 66B and not 66F is 66B carries a maximum punishment of 3 years whereas 66F carries a maximum punishment of Life Imprisonment 20/n
Further curiously, the police cites News18 Tamil office as the ‘place of occurrence’ where as there is no mention about Maridhass whom uploaded the video with fake email.
Maridhas himself claims that the email he had published is genuine and thrice he has verified it. 21/n
Maridhas himself claims that the email he had published is genuine and thrice he has verified it. 21/n
But, still the police is so scared even to mention his name against the accused column.
This is the prevailing sorry state of affairs of once a fine police force, which has turned into mercenary of the right wing.
End of thread
This is the prevailing sorry state of affairs of once a fine police force, which has turned into mercenary of the right wing.
End of thread
