Dismissed

Mayank Khanna v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Aug 2024A482/20397/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings for cheating and IT offences. The court held that factual disputes regarding mobile number usage and transactions were not suitable for quashing and the materials did not show mala fides.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; criminal proceedings against the applicant continue.

Mayank Khanna vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:146643

¶2

Court No. - 80

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20397 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mayank Khanna Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶6

Written argument filed by applicant's counsel is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

The instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 26.09.2022 and cognizance/summoning order dated 13.03.2023 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 13038 of 2023, titled as State v. Mayank Khanna and Others, arising out of Case Crime No. 14 of 2021, under Sections 420, 468, 471, 419, 467, 34 IPC and Section 66C/66D of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, P.S. Cyber Crime, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant states that the counter affidavit has not been filed by the State, and in absence of counter affidavit a clear picture of facts revealed during investigation by the police could not be placed and resultantly the outcome of the petition may be effected. Per contra , learned A.G.A. states that the instructions received in compliance of order dated 29.7.2024 are sufficient to address the issue raised by the applicants in the instant application and there is no need for the State to file counter affidavit in such cases.

¶10

Be that as it may, the material on record and the instructions placed by the State are sufficient to address the issue raised in the instant petition, therefore, there is no need of the detailed counter affidavit by the State.

¶11

On the first date of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant is not subscriber of telephone no.9627159609 and therefore, the allegations surfaced against the applicant are not sufficient to attract the ingredients of sections 420, 468, 471, 419, 467 & 34 IPC read with section 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act.

¶12

On the next date, the learned A.G.A. made a significant revelation and submitted that the mobile number 9627159609 was subscribed in the name of one Arjun s/o Nathhu, r/o Village Ramnagar, Kaithal, P.S. Chandausi, District Sambhaland. On examination, it was revealed that the mobile number 9627159609 was used in three mobile phones (instruments), having IMEI No.356973080745730, 356972080745730 and 356554091039550. It was also revealed that a mobile number 8285749909 was used in the same IMEI number in which a mobile number 9627159609 was used. In essence, the mobile number 9627159609 was used on the same IMEI number in which the accused's mobile number 8285749909 was regularly used. It was further revealed that both the numbers were used simultaneously from the same location.

¶13

In compliance of order dated 07.08.2024, the applicant's counsel filed the written arguments. The arguments undertaken by the applicant are outlined herein under as (i) the applicant is not named in the FIR, (ii) no money has been received in the bank account of the applicant, there is no transaction of any kind occurred between the informant and the applicant, (iii) no recovery

¶14

has been made from the possession of the applicant, (iv) the informant has received the entire amount of cheating, (v) the applicant is not beneficiary of any crime neither the alleged money has been transferred in the applicant's account, (vi) applicant has been falsely implicated, (vii) at the time of incident, the applicant was at his home, therefore, his involvement cannot be proved, (viii) the applicant is subscriber of mobile nos. 8826346674 and 8257749909, (ix) applicant has no concern with mob. no.9627159609, the applicant's role revealed during investigation on 8.6.2022, and (x) the police has falsely implicated the applicant because of personal enmity as he had hot talk with the police in the hospital where his mother was taking treatment during covid period.

¶15

After examining the case diary placed on record by learned A.G.A. and hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court, prima-facie finds that (i) the mobile no.9627159609 was used by the accused persons to induce the innocent patients during covid period to provide Remedesivir injections, (ii) the complainant discovered the mobile no.9627159609 through social media which was used by the accused persons, (iii) the complainant transferred Rs.57500/- twice, on 24.4.2021 in the account of co-accused, (iv) despite the receipt of amount, the Remedesivir injections were not provided, (v) the mobile number 9627159609 was used in three mobile phones (instruments), having IMEI No.356973080745730, 356972080745730 and 356554091039550, (vi) it was also revealed that a mobile number 8285749909 was used in the same IMEI number in which a mobile number 9627159609 was used, (vii) in essence, the mobile number 9627159609 was used on the same IMEI number in which the accused's mobile number 8285749909 was regularly used, (viii) it

¶16

was further revealed that both the numbers were used simultaneously from the same location.

¶17

It is an admitted case of the applicant that the applicant is subscriber of mobile no.8285749909 and the number used by the accused to induce the complainant to transfer the amount was used in the same handset, in which the applicant's no.8285749909 was being regularly used. It goes without saying that during covid period there was a scarcity of medicines all over the world and the sufferers/patients were desperate to take treatment by all means. No doubt, the applicant is not named in the FIR, his name is revealed during the investigation, therefore the arguments taken by the applicants counsel at the stage of quashing of charge-sheet cannot be appreciated, particularly, in the given facts.

¶18

In the instant matter, the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the material on record it can also not be held that the impugned criminal proceeding are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Similarly no such illegality, perversity or any other substantial error could be pointed out in the impugned charge-sheet as well as summoning order, so as to warrant any interference by this court in exercise of powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

¶19

Based on the foregoing discussions, the application u/s 482

¶20

Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.

¶21

Order Date :- 9.9.2024

¶22

Shafique

¶23

Justice Vinod Diwakar

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SAFIKUR RAHAMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mayank Khanna v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayank Khanna 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Qamar Intekhab and Another vs State of U.P.

Imran vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Kumar Mishra @ Ramu vs State of Up and Another

Smt Rani and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others

Prabhat Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Jakir vs State of U.P. and 3 Others