Partly allowed

Shravan Lal Sharma v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Aug 2024CRLP/1555/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Grave Criminal petition filed to quash FIR 39/2024 for cheating and cyber offenses. The High Court quashed proceedings against Accused No. 5 (Petitioner) for specific IT and Telecom Act offenses due to lack of averments on identity theft and license possession, while permitting investigation to continue for IPC offenses.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against Petitioner for offenses under IT Act Sections 66-C, 66-D, Telegraph Act, and Wireless Telegraphy Act were quashed; investigation for IPC Sections 417, 419, 420 permitted to continu

Shravan Lal Sharma Vs The State of Telangana — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁸⁵ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH^{DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY FOUR}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA}

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION^{NO:1555 0F 2024}

¶7

Between:

¶8

ShravanLaISharma,S/oSujaLal,Agedabout.44ye:rrs,occ.Practicing nOro"it".-nyo^{pradhano Ka Mohalla,Pha-giDistrict, Jaipur,Rajasthan'}

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED^{No' 5}

¶10

AND

¶11

l.TheStateofTelangana,RepresentedbythePublicProsecutor,HighCourtof Telangana.

¶12

Ch. Chandra^{Shekar,Sio Ch. Lingam, Aged about 30 years' Occ' Private}

¶13

Eriipr"v"", nyo +_se_aoo, vJnr,jilir,warS Nagar, Jagathgirigufta, Hyderabad.

¶14

,..RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO^COMPLAINANT

¶15

PetitionunderSection4B2ofCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances statedintheMemorandumofGroundsofcriminalPetition,theHighcourtmay O" pflui"O to^{quash FIR No. 39 of 2024dated 10t0112024pendingon the file} SHO PS. Panjagutta.

¶16

l.A. NO: 2 OF²⁰²⁴

¶17

PetitionunderSection4S2otCr.P.Cprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the Memorandum^{of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may} ;;';i";r;J to stay^{afl further investisation in FtR No. 39 of 2024 dated} 1OtO1t2O24^{pending on the file SHO PS. Panjagutta'}

¶18

This Petition coming^{on for hearing,uponperusing the Memorandum of} Grounds of criminal^{Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S' Nagesh} Reddy,AdvocateforthePetitionerandtheSriS'Ganesh'AssistantPublic Prosecutor on behalf^{of the RespondentNo.1 and of None appearedfor the} Respondent No.^2.

¶19

The Court made^{the following: OROER}

¶20

,,f //

¶21

/'4

¶22

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT. JUSTICE K.SUJANA} CRIMIN AL PETITIO^{N NO. 1555 0F 2A24}

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Criminal^{Petition is filed by the petitioner'who} is accused No.5,^{to quash the proceedingsin FIR No'39of} 2024 dated^{lO.Ol.2O24,pending on the file of Panjagutta} Police Station^{registered for the offencespunishable under} Sections⁴¹⁷ ,^{41g and' 42Oof the IndianPenalCode'1860'} Sections 66-D^{and 66-C of the Information TechnoloryAct'} 2O00, (for short^{'IT Act') Sections 4 and 20 of the Indian} 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)}

¶25

The facts of the^{complaintare that respondentNo'2} gave a compiaint to^{PS Panjagutta stating that when he} was googling for^{a DigitalServicePayment Gatewayon} 03.12.2023,^{he received a call from '852967 4a86' stating} that they were^{calling from IGS Solutionswhichwas} similar to Meeseva,^{but allegedlyrelated toCentra-l} Government and^{provides300 services' The complainant} further states that he^{paid Rs. 1800/- for registration in} order to create ID^{on his name and accordinglyhe paid the}

¶26

¶27

same through UPI and the^{company createdDT897 434 ID,} but the company is alleged^{to have said that for activation} of KYC, the application^{waspresently stalled and further} stated that the company^{further advised respondentNo'2} to take a distributor^{ID for which he wouldget more} commission and accordingly^{respondent No.2 is alleged to} have paid an additional^{amount of Rs.4040/- throughUPI} but they stated that it^{is showing KYC error.The company} further advised respondent^{No.2 to opt for a 7-rctal lD for} an amount of Rs.30,000/^{-. RespondentNo.2 grew some} suspicion and did^{not pay the saidamount.}

¶28

It is further alleged in^{the complaint that respondent} No.2 went to the^{office of IG Solutionson 9fr Floor of White} House Building,^{Begumpet, Hyderabadwherehe was} informed by the^{HR executive that the company was only} providing 5 services ald that^{refund of his money could} not be provided.^{On the complaint of respondent No'2, the} Police registered^{FIR No.39 of 2024 dated 10.01'2O24'}

¶29

The case of respondent^{No-2, as per the impugned} complaint, is that even after^{payment of amounts,the} company did not^{processhis application and did not} provide him a timely^{refund and there is absolutelyno}

¶30

-l

¶31

allegation with^{respectto identitytheft of the company} impersonating^{any other entityto cheatrespondent No'2'} 5. Heard Sri^{S-Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel} appearing on^{behalf of the petitioneras well as Sri} S.Ganesh,^{learned Assistant Public Prosecutorappearing} on behalf^{of resPondent No' l '}

¶32

karned^{counsel for the petitioner submitted that} the whole case^{is foisted only to harassthe petitionerand} the complaint^{given by respondentNo'2 is only to the} extent that^{his payment was not registered and there is a} pending dispute^{with regardto the resolutionmechanism} in IGS Solutions^{and the petitionerclaim is that without} participating in the^{resolutionand without waitingmade} huge^{galataand broughtpolice and hled falsecase'} Therefore,^{noneof the averments madein the complaint} constitute^{any offence, much less the allegedoffences' As} such, he^{prayed the Court to quashthe proceedings} against^the Petitioner'

¶33

7 . On the other^{hand, the learned AssistantPublic} Prosecutor^{vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner} stating that there^{are lot of victims in the hands of this} IGS Digital Solutions^{and itneeds further interrogation}

¶34

¶35

and also investigation. Hence, learned counsel^prayedthis Court to dismiss the petition.

¶36

In the light of the submissions^{made by both the} learned counsel and a^{perusalof the material available on} record, it appears that the^{petitioner is the Director of IGS} Digital Center and I Globe Solutions.^{The main allegation} against the petitioner is that^{respondent No.2 receiveda} call from the said Company,^{wherein, itis stated that} company is similar to^{MeesevaServices and it is relatedto} Central Government and^{provides 300 services. Believing} the same, respondent No.2^paid an^{amountof Rs.18OO/-} for registration. After^{payment, the application was stalled} for activation of KYC.^{Further,on advice of saidcompany,} respondent No.2^paid an additional^{amountof Rs.404O/-} through UPI but still^{the application was pending due to} KYC error. The company^{further advisedto opt for a zrcnal} ID for an amount of^{Rs.30,000/-however,on suspicion} respondent No.2 did^{not pay the said amount. Further,on} 06.01.2024, he went to^{IGS SolutionOffice wherein the HR} of the said company informed that^{the company is} providing only 5 services and refund of money^{could not be} provided, as such, respondent No.2 lodged^complaint before the Police. Therefore, the Police registered^{the case}

¶37

¶38

against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 419, 42O of IPC & Sections 66-D, 66-C of the IT Act, Sections 4 & 20 of the Act, 1885 and Sections 3 & 6 of the Act, 1933.

¶39

The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Sections 66-D, 66-C of IT Act is not applicable as there is no data theft even according to averments in the complaint. On going through the said contention and 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 complaint do not constitute the offences under Sections 66-C and 66-D of IT Act.

¶40

As seen from the record, the petitioner was a-iso charged for the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 20 of the Act, 1885 and Section Sections 3 and 6 of the Act, 1993. A bare perusal of the said Sections would reveal that they pertain to prohibition and possession of wireless telegraphy apparatus without possessing the license of the Central Government and the punishment thereof. In the present case, there is no avermt:nt in the

¶41

¶42

/.<br>

¶43

complaint that the^{petitioner is running the DigitalService} Payment^(iateway without^{any license,as such, the said} sections are not attracted.

¶44

1 1. However, it is^{pertinentto note that the Indian} Telecommunications^{Act, 2023 repealedexistinglegislative} iramework of the Indian^{Telegraph Act, 1885,and the} Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act,^{1933 uide gaz'ette} notification daled, 24.12.2023^{owing to huge technical} advancements in the^{telecom sector and technologies'}

¶45

The further^{contentionof the learned counsel for the} petitioner is that^petitioner is^{providingemployment and} income through their^{platform.The Policehave wrongly} projected the case and there^{is no dishonestintention in} providing services. It also^{provides training and followup} services to all its^{users in order to facilitateease of usage} and customer satisfaction'^{Purther, it is submittedthat} there was difference in^{the PANand Aadhar details more} particularly with respect to^{date of birth, as such,KYC} problem arose. Further, the^{petitioner informedthat his} complaint is pending with^{dispute resolutionmechanism,} without waiting for the^{same,respondent No.2 lodgeda}

¶46

¶47

¶48

complaint before the Police, as such, the averments do not constitute the olfence under Sections 417, 419 & 42O IpC.

¶49

Furthermore, the case of prosecution is that not only respondent No.2, but there are number of victims in the hands of petitioner and he is wrongly projecting that the said Company is related to the Central Government Schemes and the same is similar to the Meeseva services of the Sta te Government. Further the petitioner threatened respondent No.2 to compromise the matter. However, the case is still under investigation and the allegations need to be investigated. As such, proceedings against the petitioner for the offences cannot be quashed under Section s 417, 419 & 420 of IpC.

¶50

In the result, the Criminal petition is allowed-in-part and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.5 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, 1g85 and Sections 3 & 6 of the Act, 1933 are hereby quashed, while permitting the investigating officer to proceed further against the petitioner/accused No.5 for the offences punishable under Sections 4lZ, 419 and 42O of IpC.

¶51

¶52

As a sequel, miscellaneous^{applications, ifany}

¶53

pending, shali stands closed.

¶54

SDi.K.AMMAJI ASSISTANI REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'l . The XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan lMagistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Panjagutta Police Station,^Hyderabad.

¶60

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High^{Court for the Stateof Telanganaat} Hyderabad. (OUT)

¶61

One CC to Sri S. Nagesh Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶62

Two CD Copies

DL/plp

HIGH COURT

DATED:1910812024

ORDER

CRLP.No.1555 oi 202,1

¶70

.Jr'
oo 0 5 N[tJ trt{ ':
t_
o,,
*{: /
SF4;6gf'-
l3

¶71

CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED.IN.PART

¶72

nj>

Shravan Lal Sharma v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shravan Lal Sharma 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

Radha Chaturvedi Vs The State of Telangana

Smt Dasari Swarnalatha Vs The State of Telangana