Partly allowed

Anubhav Pathak v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Aug 2024A482/7102/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought to quash proceedings under Section 67(a) IT Act, citing lack of forensic examination of recovered mobile. The court noted the matter requires consideration and issued a stay on proceedings qua the applicant until the next listing.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay on proceedings qua the applicant till the next date of listing; notice to opposing parties.

Anubhav Pathak vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7102 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Anubhav Pathak Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Avadhesh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Heard.

¶6

Instant application has been filed seeking following main relief:

¶7

"to allow the present application and quash the summoning/cognizance order dated 22.07.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shrawasti, along with the chargesheet dated 18.02.2020 under Section 67(a) of Information Technology Act, Police Station Bhinga, District Shrawasti in Criminal Case No. 4045 of 2020 (State Vs. Anubhav Pathak) as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 4045 of 2020 (State Vs. Anubhav Pathak) bearing Case Crime No. 0303 of 2019, under Section 67(a) of Information Technology Act, Police Station - Bhinga, District Shrawasti, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shrawasti.

¶8

Shri Vimlendra Kumar, Inspector, GRP, Gorakhpur/Investigating Officer of the crime in issue, who is present before this Court in compliance of order of this Court, stated that mobile of the applicant was recovered and the same is the case property. However, the said mobile could not be sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for the purpose of its examination.

¶9

He however contends that the charge-sheet against the applicant was filed before the trial Court based upon the report provided by concerned telecom operator i.e. Reliance Jio Telecom which was provided by In-charge, Crime Branch/Cyber Cell, Shrawasti having PNO No. 002870016, which is apparent from the document annexed at page no. 52 of the paper-book.

¶10

In view of aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the matter requires consideration.

¶11

Issue notice. Steps be taken within seven working days.

¶12

List/put in the first week of January, 2025 along with Service Report, as fresh.

¶13

An affidavit in response to the present application shall be filed by Additional Director General (Cyber Crime), Lucknow.

¶14

As an interim measure, it is provided that till the next date of listing, the proceedings in issue qua the applicant shall remain stayed.

¶15

The personal appearance of the Investigating Officer is exempted unless specifically called by this court .

¶16

Order Date :- 29.11.2024 Mohit Singh/-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anubhav Pathak v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anubhav Pathak v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 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

Anshul Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Up Govt. Civil Sectt. and Ors.

Abdul Rauf and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ravindra Yadav and Others Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Prem Shankar and 15 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Station House Officer Lko. and Another

Irfan @ Irfan Ali and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Ram Sanehi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko