Partly allowed

Radha Chaturvedi v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Aug 2024CRLP/1553/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused No.2 sought to quash an FIR alleging online service-payment-gateway cheating under IPC, IT Act and telegraphy statutes. The court quashed proceedings under the IT Act and telegraphy provisions for lack of supporting averments but allowed investigation under Sections 417, 419 and 420 IPC to continue.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against accused No.2 under IT Act 66-C/66-D, Telegraph Act 1885 ss.4 & 20 and Wireless Telegraphy Act 1933 ss.3 & 6 quashed; IO permitted to proceed under IPC ss.417, 419, 420.

Radha Chaturvedi Vs The State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^338s ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶3

IVIONDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1553 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Radha Chaturvedi, Wo Prateek Chauvey Aged about. 36^years, occ. NonExecutive Director, IGS Digital Center Rl/o H.No. 151, Patarcar Colony,^lVlanasa Sarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No 2

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . The State of Telangana, Represented by the Public Prosecutor High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶12

Ch. Chandra Shekar, S/o Ch. Lingam Aged about. 30^years, Occ. Private Employee R/o 4-33-300, Venkateshwara Nagar, Jagathgirigutta, Hyderabad

¶13

...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶14

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High^Courtmay be pleased to^quash FIR No. 39 ol 2024 daled 1010112024^{pendingon the file} SHO PS. Panjagutta.

¶15

l.A. NO: 2OF 2024

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the^{High Courtmay} be pleased to stay all further investigation in FIR No. 39 of^2024dated 1O1O112024^pending on the file SHO PS. Panjagutta.

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^{perusing the Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing^{the arguments of Sri S NAGESH} REDDY.,Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant^{Public Prosecutor(TG) on} behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none^{appeared for the Respondent No.2.}

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT. JUSTICEK'SUJANA} CRIMIN^{AL PETITIONNO.15530F 2024}

¶20

oRDER:

¶21

This Criminal^{Petition is f-rled by the petitioner'who} is accused^{No.2. to quash the proceedings in FIR No 39 o[} 2024 dated^{lO.Ol'2O24,pending on the file of Panjagutta} Police^{Station registered for the offencespunishable under} Sections^{417,4Igand' 42O of the Indian Penal Code'1860'} Sections^{66-D and 66-C of the InformationTechnoloS''Ac1.'} 20OO,^{(for short 'lT Act')Sections4 and 20 ol the lndian} Telegraph^{Act, 1885, (for short 'the Act' 1885) and} Sections^{3 and 6 of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act'} 1933.^{(for short'the Act, 1933)}

¶22

The facts^{of the complaintare that respondentNo 2} gave a complarnt^{to PS Panjagutta stadngthat when tre} was googling^{lbr a Digital Service Payment Gateway ctn} 03.12.2023,^{he received a call from 'a52967 48a6' stating} that they^{\ rere calling from IGS Solutionsu'hichwas} similartoMeeseva,butallegedlyrelatedtoCentral Government^{and provides 300 services'The complainant} furtherStatesthatshepaidRs.l8oo/-lorregistrationin order to^{createlD on her name and accordingly she paid}

¶23

¶24

the same through UPI and the cornpany created DT897434 ID, but the company is alleged to have said that for activation of KYC, the application was presently stalled and further stated that the company further advised respondent No.2 to take a distributor ID for which he would get more commission and accordingly respondent No.2 is alleged to have paid an additional amount of Rs.4040/- through UPI but they stated that it is showing KYC error. The company further advised respondent No.2 to opt for a Zonal ID lor an amount of Rs.3O,000/-. Respondcnt No.2 grew some suspicion and did not pay the said amount.

¶25

It is further alleged in the complaint that respondent No.2 went to the office of IG Solutions on 9th Floor of White House Building, Begumpet, Hyderabad where she was informed by the HR executive that the company was only providing 5 services and that refund of her money could not be provided. On the complaint of respondent No.2, the Police registered FIR No.39 of 2024 dated lO.Ol.2O24.

¶26

The case of respondent No.2, as per the impugned complaint, is that even after payment of amounts, the company did not process her application and did not

¶27

¶28

provide her a timely refund and^{there is absolutelyno} allegation with respect to identity^{theft of the company} impersonating any other entity^{to cheat respondenlNo2.} 5. Heard Sri S-Nagesh Reddy,^{Iearnedcounsel} appearing on behalf of the^{petitioner as r'r'cll ers Sri} S.Ganesh, learned Assistant^{Public Prosecutor appearing} on behalf of rcspondent No.^1.

¶29

Learned counsel for the^{petitioner subn-rittecl t-hat} the w'hole case is toisted only to^{harass the pctitioncrand} the complaint given by respondent^{No.2 is onl-y to the} extent that her payment^{was not registered and thcrc is a} pending dispute with regard to the^{resolution mechanism} in IGS Solutions and the^{petitioner claimis that u'ithc)ut} participating in the resolution and without^{u'eriting m:rde} huge galata and brought police and^{filed lalse ca se} Therefore, none of the averments^{made in the complaint} constitute any offence, much^{less the alleged offenccs As} such, he prayed the Court to^{quash the proceedings} against the petitioner.

¶30

On the other hand, the^{learned Assistant Putrlic} Prosecutor vehemently opposed the^{prayer of the petitioner} stating that there are lot of victims in the hands^{of this}

¶31

¶32

IGS Digital Solutions and it needs lurther interrogation and al.so investigatior-r. Hence, Iearned counsel pra,yed this Corrrt to dismiss tht'petition.

¶33

In the iight ol the submissions made by both the learr-red counsel and a perusal of the ma[erial available on record, it appears that the petitioner is the Director^{of IGS} Digitai Center anci I Globe Solutions. The main ailegation againsl the petitioner is t.hat respondent No.2 received a uall fror,r the szrid Company, r,l'herein, it is stated^that ccfiipzrn]' is similar to Meeseva Services and it^{is relatedi-o} Ccntral Government and provides 3O0 services.^Believing the same, respondent No-2 paid an amount^{of Rs.t8OO/-} for registration. After payment, the application^rvas stalled for activation of KYC. Further, on advice of said company, respondcnt No.2 paid an additional amount of^Rs.4O4O/- through UPI but stiil the application^{rvaspending due to} KYC error. The r:ompany further advised to^{opt for a zonal} ID for an amount of Rs.3O,OOO/ however, or-r^suspicion respondcnt No.2 did not pay the said amount.^{Further, on} 06.01.2024, she r.vent to IGS Solution^{Office whereinthe} HR of tire said company informed that the^companyis providing only 5 services and refund of money could not be proviied, as such, respondent No.2 lodged complaint

¶34

)

¶35

before the Police.^{Therefore,the Policeregistered[he case} agarnst the petitioner for the^{offences punishablc ullder} Sections 417, 419, 42O of IPC & Sections^{66-D, 66-C oi thc} lT Act, Sections 4 & 20 of the Act, 1885 and^{Sections 3 & 6} of the Act, 1933.

¶36

The hrst contention of the learned counsel lor^the petitioner is that Sections 66-D, 66-C of IT Act is^not applicable as there is no data theft even^accordingto avermenLs in the complaint. On^going through^{the said} contention arrd the averments in the complaint or^remand report do not constitute the offences for the^{said Sections,} there is no allegation of identity theft and cheating^by personation. As such, the averments in the complainl do not constitute the offences under Sections 66-C and^{(16 D} of lT Act.

¶37

As seen from the record, the petitioner was^also charged for the offences^punishable under^{Sections4 and} 2O of the Act, 1885 and Section Sections^{3 and 6 o[ the Act,} 1993. A bare perusal of the said Sections^{would revealthat} they pertain to prohibition and^possession of rvireless telegraphy apparatus without possessing the license of the Central Government and the punishment thereof. In the

¶38

¶39

present case, there is no averment^{in the complaint that} the petitioner is running^{the Digital Service Payment} Gateway without any^{license, as such,the said sectionsare} not attracted.

¶40

1 1 . However, it is pertinent^{to note that the Indian} Telecommunications Act,^{2023 repealed existing legislative} framework of the Indian^{Telegraph Act, 1885, and the} Indian Wireless Telegraphy^{Act,1933 uide gazette} notification d,ated, 24.12.2023^{owing to huge technical} advancements in the telecom^{sectorand [echnologies'}

¶41

The further contention^{of the learned counselfor the} petitioner is that petitioner is^{providing employment and} income through their^{platform.The Police have wrongly} projected the case and there^{is no dishonestintention in} providing services. It also^{providestraining and follow up} services to all its users in^{orderto faciiitateease of usage} and customer satisfaction.^{Further, it is submitted that} there was difference^{in the PANand Aadhar detailsmore} particularly with respect to^{date of birth, as such, KYC} problem arose. Further,^{the petitioner informedthat his} complaint is pending with^{dispute resolution mechanism'} without waiting for the^{same, respondentNo'2 lodged a}

¶42

¶43

I !

¶44

complaint bcfore the Police, as^{such,the averments do not} constitute the offence under Sections 417,479 & 420 IPC.

¶45

Furthermore, the case of prosecution is that not onlv respondent No.2, but there are number of victims ir--. the hands of petitioner and he is wrongly projecting thal- the said Company is related to the Central Governrnent Schemes and the same is similar to the Meeseva services o[ the State Government. Further the petitioner threatened respondent No.2 [o compromise the matter. However, the case is still u nder investigation and the allegations ner:d to be investigated. As such, proceedings against the petitioner lor the offences cannot be quashed uoder Sections 417 . 419 & 420 of IPC.

¶46

In thc result, the Criminal Petition is allowed-in-p:irt and [he proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in FIR No.39 of 2024 of Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad for the offences punishable under Sections 66 C and 66-D of IT Act, Sections 4 & 20 of the Act, 1885 and Sections 3 & 6 of the Act, 1933 are hereby quashed, while permitting the investigating officer to proceed further against the petitioner/accused No.2 for the offences punishable ur-rder Sections 417 , 419 and 42O of lPC.

¶47

¶48

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if^any

¶49

pending, shall stands closed.

¶50

SD/-P.CH.NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶51

//TRUE COPY// SECTKFFICER To, 1 . The XIV Additional l/etropolitan Magistrate^{At Hyderabad.} 2. The Station House Officer,Panjagutta^{PoliceStation} ,Hyderabad. 3. One CC to SRI S. NAGESH REDDY,^Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court^{for the Stateof Telangana at} Hyderabad[OUT]. 5. Two CD Copies AR/plp c4A

HIGH COURT

DATED:19/08/2024

ORDER

CRLP.No.1553 ot 2024

::i ";
1H c- s r,r 7c.
s
( o
Q (
z
ltlt
tj o
J
1
,o
a r )e: S P;.t'lll

¶58

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION.

¶59

a-L v
0 cM

Radha Chaturvedi v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radha Chaturvedi v. The State of Telangana

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

Jogam Saidulu Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd.Yousuf Vs The State Of Telangana

Kanakarajusai Prakash Iyer Vs State of Telangana

Sakinala Narayana Vs State of Telangana

Smt Dasari Swarnalatha Vs The State of Telangana

Shravan Lal Sharma Vs The State of Telangana