Allowed

Preeti Shakta v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2022/1364/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC, this court quashed criminal proceedings initiated under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The court held that since the applicant was unaware her name was removed from a joint account, her subsequent transactions did not constitute dishonesty or fraud.

What did the court decide?

The application was allowed and the proceedings arising out of the impugned charge-sheet were quashed.

Preeti Shakta Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1364 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Preeti Shakta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kunwar Ravi Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shaiphali Nag

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate, representing respondent no. 1-State, as well as Ms. Shaiphali Nag, learned counsel representing respondent no. 2.

¶6

By way of this application under Section 482 CrPC the applicant has prayed for quashing of charge-sheet no.01 of 2019 dated 25.05.2019 filed in FIR No.080 of 2019, under Sections 66C of The Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short "Act, 2000") registered at Police Station Cantt., District Lucknow.

¶7

Further prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 04.11.2019 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow whereby cognizance has been taken on the impugned charge-sheet and the applicant has been summoned to face trial and also for quashing of the proceedings of Case No.86752 of 2019.

¶8

The complainant is the husband of the applicant; marriage between them was solemnized on 20.11.2014 according to Hindu rites and rituals in Lucknow; from their wedlock, son, Mohit was born on 04.03.2016; a joint bank account, in the name of respondent no. 2 and the applicant, was opened in the State Bank of India, Branch Neelmath, Lucknow being Account No.20038892022; initially, everything was going well, however, it appears that after sometime dispute/differences arose between them; the applicant, along with her child, moved away from matrimonial house and, filed an application under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow being Criminal Misc. Case No.348 of 2018; the learned Family Court passed order on 04.04.2018, providing interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.1500/- to wife (applicant) and Rs.500/- to her minor child.

¶9

The applicant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Lucknow on 22.03.2018 being Complaint Case No.198 of 2018; the applicant also filed

¶10

Complaint Case No.748 of 2018 under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 Indian Penal Code read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against respondent no. 2 and his family members on which they had been summoned vide order dated 22.05.2019.

¶11

The FIR of the impugned case had been registered on allegation that the applicant transferred Rs.95,000/- from the bank account, which was jointly held, on 09.05.2019 through UPIapp. It is said that earlier also Rs.37,000/- was transferred by the applicant from the said account which could come to knowledge of the respondent no. 2, husband of the applicant, only when he enquired from the bank; for the last two years the parties were not living together and, there were litigation between them, however, the applicant got a new ATM and changed her mobile number without knowledge of the complainant, her husband, and transferred money in her account; on 16.04.2019, the said account was converted into single hand operation of the complainant on an application being given by him.

¶12

The police, after investigating the offence, had filed chargesheet against the applicant and the impugned proceedings have been undertaken on the said charge-sheet after taking cognizance.

¶13

Submission made by the leaned counsel for the applicant is that the account was jointly held by the husband and wife and the wife was authorized to operate the account; the informant had admitted that the account was joint with the applicant and, it was later on, converted only in name of the informant/husband; the applicant was not aware of the fact that her name had been removed from the account and she withdrew the amount for household expenses and to maintain herself and her minor child. Further submission made by the learned counsel is that the applicant has not committed any offence under Section 66 of the Act, 2000; the impugned charge-sheet and the proceedings undergone are nothing but a personal vendetta and revenge against the applicant of initiating legal action against the respondent no. 2. It is further submitted that, prima facie, no offene, is made out against the application even on the basis of the record as the applicant was joint account holder and without her knowledge her name was removed and she withdrew the amount to meet the expenses of her minor son and herself. It is further submitted that in view of the aforesaid, the impugned proceedings, which are nothing but abuse of process of the Court, be quashed.

¶14

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2

¶15

has submitted that the applicant withdrew the amount of Rs.95,000/- after her name was removed from the joint account and, she had no authority to operate the bank account. It has been further submitted that the offece under Section 66 of the Act, 2000 is clearly made out against the applicant and, therefore, the application be dismissed.

¶16

I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and peruse the entire record.

¶17

It is not in dispute that before 16.04.2019 bank account no.20038892022 was being held in joint names of the applicant and the respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 2 had not stated that name of the applicant was removed from joint account with her consent/knowledge. Section 66 of the Act, 2000 reads as under:-

¶18

66. Computer related offences . -If any person, dishonestly or fraudulently, does any act referred to in section 43, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees or with both.

¶19

Explanation. -For the purposes of this section,-

¶20

(a) the word "dishonestly" shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 24 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860);

¶21

(b) the word "fraudulently" shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 25 of the Indian Penal Code

¶22

Thus, the offence under Section 66 of the Act, 2000 is attracted if someone fraudulently or dishonestly uses electronic signature or password of any other person. In the present case, the applicant was joint account holder. She knew password of the UPIapp and she did not have knowledge that her name had been removed from the joint account by the respondent no. 2 and the account was held only in the name of respondent no. 2. Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case as well as provisions of Section 66 of the Act 2000, this Court is of the view that offence under Section 66 of the Act, 2000 is not attracted and, therefore, continuation of the impugned proceedings would be an abuse of process of the Court and law.

¶23

Hence, the application is allowed and the proceedings, arising out of impugned charge-sheet, is hereby quashed.

¶24

Order Date :- 7.7.2022 MVS/-

¶25

Digitally signed by MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN Date: 2022.07.11 15:03:40 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Preeti Shakta v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Preeti Shakta v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. J.P. Bhargav and Anr. Vs State of U.P. Thru. C.B.I. Special Crime Branch Lko and Anr.

Rizwan Zaheer S/O Zaheerul Haq Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home

Radhey Shyam and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrtt. Lko and Another

Maan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Anr.

Dr. Rajendra Kumar Saini Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Ishhaq @ Ashhak Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another