Partly allowed

Rajani Narwar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Aug 2024CRLP/1556/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partially allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It quashed proceedings regarding specific IT Act and telecommunications offences due to lack of specific allegations, but permitted the investigation to continue under IPC fraud sections which were found attracted by the facts. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications were closed.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against Petitioner/Accused No.3 for offences under IT Act Sections 66-C, 66-D and Telegraph/Wireless Telegraphy Acts sections 4, 20, 3, 6 are quashed; investigation continues under IPC Sec

Rajani Narwar Vs The State of Telangana — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁸⁵ I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

IV1ONDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1556 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Rajani Narwar, D/o. Mr. Shyam Kumar Newar, Aged about. 31 years, occ. Non-Executive Director, IGS Digital Center Rl/o 151 , Patrakar Colony, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶9

...Petitioner/Accused No.3

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Represented by the Public Prosecutor High Court of Telangana

¶12

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

¶13

...Respondents/Defacto Complainant

¶14

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in lhe circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash FIR No. 39 of 2024 dated 10.01.2024 pending on the file SHO PS. Panjagutta.

¶15

I.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 Court may be pleased to stay all further investigation in FIR No.39 of 2024 dated 10.01 .2024 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 Sri S. Ganesh, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and none appeared for the Respondent No. 2

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

¶20

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT. JUSTICE K.SUJANA} CRIMINAL^{PETITIONNO.1556oF 2024}

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This Criminal^{Petition is filed by the petitioner'who} is a.cused No.3,^{to quash ttre proceedingsin FIR No 39 of} 2024 dated 1O-O1.2O24,^{pending on the lile of Panjagutta} Police Station^{registered for the offencespunishable under} Sections 4l7,4lg^{and 42O of the Indian Penal Code' l86o'} Sections 66-D and^{66-C of the Information TechnologzAct'} 2OOO, (for short 'IT^{Act') Sections4 and 20 of tl-re lndian} Telegraph Act,^{1885, (for short 'the Act' 1tt85)and} Sections 3 and 6^{of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act'} 1933.^(for short^{'ttre Act,1933)}

¶23

2- The facts of the^{complaintare that respondentNo 2} gave a complaint to^{PS Panjaguttastating that r'r'hcnhe} vr.'as googling for a^{DigitalServicePayment Ciiltcu'il'on} O3.12.2O2g,^{he received a call from'852967 4886' stating} that the)' were^{callingfrom IGS Solutionsrvhit--hrvas} similar to Meeseva,^{but allegedly related to Central} (iovernment and provides 30O services'^{The complainant} further states that^{she paid Rs' 180O/ - for rcglstratronin} order to create ID on her^{name and accordirtglvshc paid}

the same through UPI and the company created DT8}Z434 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.4O4O/- through UPI but rhey stated thar it is showing KYC error. The company further advised respondent No.2 to opt for a Tanal ID for an amount of Rs.30,O0O/-. Respondent No.2 grew some suspicion and did not pay the said amount.

¶28

It is further alleged in the complaint that respondent No.2 went to the office of IG Solutions on 9rh Floor of White House Building, Begumpet, Hyderabad whcre she vvas informed by the HR executive rhat the company was only providing 5 services and that refund o[ her monev could not be provided. On the complaint o[ respondent No.2, the Police registered FIR No.39 of 2024 dated 1O.O1.2O24.

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

¶32

provide her a^{timely refund and there is absolutelyno} allegation^{with respect to identitytheft of the company} impersonating^{any otherentity to cheat respondent No'2'} 5. Heard Sri^{S'Nagesh Reddy' learned counsel} appearing^{on behalf of the petitioneras well as Sri} S.Ganesh,^{learned AssistantPublic Prosecutor appearing} on behalf of^{resPondentNo' 1'}

¶33

Learned counsel^{for the petitioner submittedthat} the ^'hole^{case is foisted only to harassthe petitioner and} the complaint^{given by respondentNo'2 is only to the} extent that^{her payment was not registered and thereis a} pcnding dispute^{with regardto the resolutionmechanism} in I(iS Solutions^{and the petitionerclaim is that without} participating^{in the resolutionand without waitingmade} hugc^{galatiiand brought Police and filed falsecase'} Therefore,^{none of the avermentsmade in the complaint} constitutc^{any offence, muchless t]le alleged offences' As} such, he PraYed^{the Court to} quash the Proceeclings against the Petitioner-

¶34

()r-r rhe other hand, the^{learned AssistantPr-rblic} Prosccut<>r vehemently^{opposed the prayer of the petirioncr} stal ing that there^{are lot of victimsin the handsof this} IGS Digital^{Solutions and itneeds further interrogation}

¶35

¶36

¶37

and also investigation. Hence, learned counsel prayed this Court to dismiss the petition.

¶38

In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on reiord, 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 received a call from the said Company, wherein, it is stated that company is similar to Meeseva Services and it is related to Central Government and provides 30O services. Believing the same, respondent No.2 paid an amount of Rs. l80O/for registration. After pa5rment, the application rvas stalled for activation of KYC. Further, on advice of said company, respondent No.2 paid an additional amount of Rs.4O4O/through UPI but still the application u,as^pcnding due to KYC error. The company further advised to opt for a zonal ID for an arnount of Rs.30,000/ - howevcr, on suspicion respondent No.2 did not pay the said amount. Further, on 06.01.2024, she went to IGS Solution Office^{r.r'hereinthe} HR of the said company informed that the compa n,v^is providing only 5 services and refund of moncy could not be provided, as such, respondent No.2 todged complaint before the Police. Therefore, the Police registered the^case

¶39

¶40

against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 4I7,419,42O of IPC & Sections 66-D,66-C of the IT Act, Sections 4 & 2O of the Act, 1885 arrd Sections 3 & 6 of the Act, 1933.

¶41

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 thc 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 constirute thc offences under Sections 66-C and 66-D o[ IT Ar:t

¶42

As seen from the record, the petitioner was also chargecl lirr thc offences punishable under Sections 4 and 20 of tht' Act, l[l85 and Section Sections 3 and 6 of the Act, 1993. A bare perusal of tl're said Sections would rcveal lhat thov pertain to prohibition and possession of wireless telcgraph-y apparatus without possessing the Iicensc of thc Central Government and the punishment thercof- In thc present case, there is no averment in the

¶43

¶44

complaint^{that the petitioneris runningthe DigitalService} Payment^{Gateway without any license' as such' the said} sections^{are not attracted'}

¶45

I I . . However,^{it is pertinent to note that the Indian} TelecommunicationsAct,2023repealedexistinglegislative framework of^{the IndianTelegraph Act' 1885' and the} Indian^{WirelessTelegraphyAct'1933 uide gazette} notiflcation^{dated 24'12'2023owing to hugetechnical} advancements^{in the telecom sectorand technologies'}

¶46

The^{further contention of the learned counsel for the} petitioner is that^{petitioneris providingemployment and} income through^{their platform'ThePolice have u'ronglv} projccted the^{case and there is no dishonest intenrion itt} providing^{services.It also provides training and follou' up} serviccs to^{all its usersin order to facilitateease o[ uszrgc} irnclcustomersatisfaction'Furtlrer,itissubmittedthat thcrc^{was differencein the PAN and Aadhar details more} particularly^{with respect to date of birth' as such 'KYC} problem arose.^{Further, the petitioner informedthat his} complaint^{is pendingwith dispute resoludonmechanism'} r,r'ithout waiting^{for the sarne, respondentNo'2 loclgeda}

I I

complaint before the Police, as such, the averments do not constitute the offence under Sections 417, 419 & 420 IpC. 13. Furthermore, the case of prosecution is that not only respondent No.2, but there are number of victims in the hdnds of petitioner and he is wrongly projecting that ti.e said Company is related to the Central Government Schemes and the same is similar to the Meeseva services of the State 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 petitioncr for the offences cannot be quashed under Sections 417 , 119 & 42O of IPC.

¶52

t4. [n tl-re result, rhe Criminal^petition is allowed-in-part and the proccedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 in FIR No.39 o[ 2rJ24 of^panjagutta police Station, Hyderabad for ttre ofenccs punishable under Sections 66-C and 66-D of IT Acr, Secrions 4 & 2O of the Act, lgg5 and Sections 3 & 6 of rhc Act, 1933 are hereby quashed, while perrnitting the investigating officer to proceed further against the pet itioner/ accused No.3 for the offences punishable undcr Sr:crion s 4lZ , 419 and 420 of IpC.

¶53

¶54

I , I

¶55

As a seque 1, miscellaneous applications,^ifany

¶56

pending, shall stands closed.

¶57

I I

¶58

SD/-P.PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'1 . The XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. The Station House Officer, Panjagufta Police Station, Hyderibad. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT) 4 Qne CC to Sri S. Nagesh Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies Njb/plp

8n.c.

HIGH COURT'

DATED:1910812024

ORDER

-t .1i i, ,,.r
J
)^<br>J '(,\tt<br>:)i)
[ 5 ll0\1 zul ?t
!)l
n
i oS,//
D P/*TcH cCt

¶68

CRLP.No.1556 ot 2024

¶69

^{q, t"r\ra\l-q'

¶70

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION

Rajani Narwar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajani Narwar 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