Ghaziabad assault video: Twitter exec doesn’t have to seem at UP police station, no coercive motion, directs HC

The Karnataka High Court Thursday directed the Uttar Pradesh Police to not take coercive motion towards the Managing Director of Twitter India, offering him interim reduction from personally showing at a Ghaziabad police station for questioning over the controversial video of an assault on an aged man.
A single-judge bench granted reduction to Manish Maheshwari after the Twitter govt approached the courtroom questioning the authorized standing of a discover issued to him on June 21 to seem on the Loni Border police station in Ghaziabad on June 24 for investigation within the case.
A writ petition filed by the Twitter India official on Wednesday over the UP police discover to him was taken on report by the Karnataka High Court on Thursday.
Justice G Narendar, whereas posting the case for listening to on June 29, requested the police to gather any info they require from Maheshwari via “virtual mode”. On June 18, the manager had advised the UP police that he could be obtainable for answering queries in a digital format.
Maheshwari has sought the quashing of the UP police discover for private look in Ghaziabad and an interim keep on it.
In his writ petition within the High Court, Maheshwari has questioned the legality of the discover issued to him by the UP police below Section 41-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. He has additionally argued that he’s not a director at Twitter India as outlined by the Companies Act 2013 to be summoned for questioning.

“It is relevant to note that a notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. is issued to an accused person. A bare reading of the FIR in Crime No. 502/2021 makes it apparent that the petitioner has not been named as an accused,” says the petition filed by Maheshwari.
The discover has been issued to him “on the erroneous premise” that he’s Managing Director of Twitter Communications India Pvt Ltd, says the petition. “The petitioner is employed with TCIPL as its revenue head in charge of advertising sales. As the petitioner is a senior employee of the company, a public designation of “Managing Director” has been offered to the petitioner. However, the mentioned designation shouldn’t be by way of Section 2(5a) of the Companies Act, 2013,” the petition argues.
 “When a company is accused an officer of the company cannot be issued with Section 41-A notice. Whenever a company is accused, notice can only be issued under section 160 Cr.P.C,” as accomplished initially by the UP police on June 17, says the petition.
The petition has argued that “issuance of a notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C with all the attendant consequences to a representative of a company would be in violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India”.