Disposed¶8

Acl Mobile Limited v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2020CRLP/2320/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of F.I.R.; Case Crime No.0874 of 2019; Section 66 Information Technology Act; 420 I.P.C.; cyber crime; OTP disclosure and misappropriation; cognizable offence; referral to Cyber Cell / Cyber Crime Branch; application dated 23.01.2020; direction to respondent no.4; petition disposed of; order dated 10.2.2020; Police Station Surajpur; District Gautam Buddha Nagar; Acl Mobile Limited v. State of U.P.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; F.I.R. not quashed; respondent no.4 directed to consider the petitioner's application dated 23.01.2020 for referral of the investigation to the Cyber Crime, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within one month. ¶8

Acl Mobile Limited Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2020)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the First Information Report dated 23.07.2019 (Case Crime No.0874 of 2019) should be quashed. +2 more

¶4

Ratio / Principle

The allegations made in the F.I.R. do constitute a cognizable offence and as such it is necessary that the matter be investigated by the appropriate police; the F.I.R. was accordingly not quashed.

¶6

Key takeaways

Petition disposed of with a direction to respondent no.4 to consider the petitioner's application dated 23.01.2020 for referring the investigation to the Cyber Crime, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month.ratio¶8
The F.I.R. is in relation to a cyber crime and the petitioner is not specifically mentioned therein; the petitioner is a company that generates OTP.obiter¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Acl Mobile Limited sought quashing of the F.I.R. dated 23.07.2019 registered as Case Crime No.0874 of 2019 under Section 66 Information Technology Act and 420 I.P.C. at Police Station Surajpur, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, together with referral of the investigation to the Cyber Cell. The F.I.R. concerned a cyber crime in which a certain amount was misappropriated after the informant disclosed an OTP; the petitioner-company generates OTP and was not specifically named in the F.I.R. Holding that the allegations constitute a cognizable offence requiring investigation by the appropriate police, the Bench (Hon'ble Pankah Mithal and Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, JJ.) disposed of the petition by order dated 10.2.2020, directing respondent no.4 to consider the petitioner's application dated 23.01.2020 to the Cyber Crime Branch, Surajpur, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within one month.

¶1

Court No. - 29 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2320 of 2020 Petitioner :- Acl Mobile Limited Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anirudh Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶3

Heard Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶4

The petitioner has preferred this petition for the quashing of the First Information Report dated 23.07.2019 registered as Case Crime No.0874 of 2019, under Section 66 Information Technology Act and 420 I.P.C., Police Station- Surajpur, District Gautam Buddha Nagar and at the same time a further prayer has also been made that the investigation pursuant to the aforesaid F.I.R. be referred to the Cyber Cell of the police and the investigation may be completed expeditiously.

¶5

We have gone through the contents of the F.I.R. and find that it is in relation to a cyber crime and that petitioner is not specifically mentioned therein. The petitioner is a company that generates OTP and it is alleged that someone from a particular mobile number had asked the informant to disclose the OTP failing which his transaction would not be completed. On the basis of the said disclosure of OTP certain amount had been misappropriated.

¶6

The allegations made in the F.I.R. do constitute a cognizable offence and as such it is necessary that the matter be investigated by the appropriate police.

¶7

Sri S.K. Mishra, counsel for the petitioner submits that since it is matter relating to a cyber crime it should be referred to the Cyber Cell of the police. The petitioner in this regard has submitted an application dated 23.01.2020 to the Cyber Crime Branch Surajpur, Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

¶8

In the facts and circumstances of the case as the petitioner has already submitted an application for referring the matter for investigation to the Cyber Crime, we dispose of the petition with the direction to the respondent no.4 to consider the above application of the petitioner dated 23.01.2020 in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of one month.

¶9

Order Date :- 10.2.2020 Radhika

Acl Mobile Limited v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Acl Mobile Limited v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dipen Kariya @ Dipen Kantulal Karia Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Lal Chandra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Vinod Singh Vs the State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt Maiki Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Avinash Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jyoti Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others