Partly allowed

Prateek Chauvey v. The State of Telagnana

Telangana HC19 Aug 2024CRLP/1765/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana partially allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIR proceedings. The court quashed charges under Sections 66-C, 66-D of the IT Act, and the Telegraph Acts due to lack of substantive allegations, but permitted the investigation to continue regarding offences under Sections 417, 419, and 420 of IPC.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings quashed for IPC Sections 417, 419, 420 were quashed; proceedings for IT Act Sections 66-C, 66-D and Telegraph Acts were permitted to continue.

Prateek Chauvey Vs The State of Telagnana — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

N/ONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶5

CRIMINAL P ETITION NO: 1765 oF 2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

Prateek Chauvey, Sfo:L?.t9 Radheshyam Chathurvedi, aged about 36 years, occ.: Director of tGS Disitat center anJ I Gt;;; s"[i;"r]"ny". ir", rrr""l.i.r, Patrkar Colony, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan

¶8

...Petitioner / Accused No. I

¶9

l The State of Telagnana, Rep. by fiX?r0,," prosecutor High Court of Telangana

¶10

Ch Chandra Shekar, i/:^ 9l Lingam, aged about 30 years, Occ.: private Emptoyee, R/o. 4_33_300, Venta-tesfrwaia tfagar, .Jagathgiiiqrtir, HVdui"OrO ...Respondents / Defacto Complainant

¶11

Petition under Section 4g2 of Cr.p.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvemorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be preased to quash FrR No. 39 0f 2024 dated 10.01.2024 pending on the fire Station House Officer, pS panjagutta.

¶12

t.A. NO i 2 OF 2024

¶13

Petition under Section 4g2 of Cr.p.C. praying that in the circumslances stated in the r\4emorandum of Grounds of criminar petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further investigation in FIR No. 3g of 2o24 dated 1O.O1 .2024 pending on the file Station House Officer, pS panjagutta.

¶14

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Arlemorandum of Grounds of criminar petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri s Nagesh Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and sri S Ganesh, Assistant pubric Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and None Appeared for the Respondent No. 2.

¶15

The Court made the following Order :

¶16

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K.SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1755 OF 2024

¶17

ORDER:

¶18

This Criminal Petition is hled by the petitioner, who is accused No.l, to quash the proceedings in FIR No.39 of 2024 dated lO.Ol.2O24, pending on the file of Panjagutta Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 419 and 42O of the lndian Pena] Code, 1860, Sections 66-D and 66-C of the Information Technologr^Act, 20OO, (for short 'lT Act') Sections 4 and 20 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, (for short the Act, 1885) and Sections 3 and 6 of the [ndian Wireless Telegraphy^Act, 1933. (for short 'the Act, 1 933)

¶19

The facts of thc complaint are that respondent^No.2 gave a complaint to PS Panjagutta stating that when^he was googling for a Digital Service Payment Gateway on O3.t2.2O23, he received a call from^{'8529674886' stating} that they were calling from IGS Solutions which^was similar to Meeseva, but allegedly related to^Central Government and provides 3OO services. The complainant further states that he paid Rs. 18OO/- for registrationⁱⁿ order to create [D on his name and accordingly^{he paid the}

¶20

¶21

same through UPI and the company created^{DT897434 lD,} but the company is alleged to have said^{that for activation} of KYC, the application was presently stalled^{and further} stated ttrat 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.^{Tht: company} further advised respondent No.2 to opt for a^Zonal ID^tot an anount of Rs.3O,OOO/-. Respondent No.2^greu'some suspicion and did not pay the said amount.

¶22

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 whert' hc^was informed by the HR executive that the companY^was only providing 5 services and that refund of his mt>ney could not be provided. On the complaint of responde nt No.2, the Police registered FIR No.39 of 2024 dated lO.O I .2024.

¶23

The case of respondent No.2, as per the impugned complaint, is that even after payment of amounts, the company did not process his application and did not provide him a timely refund and there is absolutely no

¶24

allegation with respect to^{identitytheft of the company} impersonating any^{other entity to cheat respondent No'2'} 5. Heard Sri S.Nagesh Reddy,^{learned counsel} appearing on behalf of the^{petitioner as well as Sri} S.Ganesh, learned^{Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing} on behalf of respondent^No.1.

¶25

lrarned counsel for the^{petitioner submitted that} the whole case^{is foisted only to harass the petitionerand} the complaint^given by^{respondent No.2 is only to the} extent that his^{paymentwas not rcgisteredand there is a} pending dispute with regard^{to the resolutionmechanism} in IGS Solutions and^{the petitioner claimis that without} participating in the resolution^{and without waitingmade} huge galata and brought^{policc and filed falsecase'} Therefore, none of the^{averments made in the complaint} constitute any offence,^{much less the alleged offences'As} such, he prayed the^{Court to quash the proceedings} against the^petitioner.

¶26

7 . On the other hand,^{the learnedAssistant Public} Prosecutor vehemently^{opposed the prayerof the petitioner} stating that there^{are lot of victims in the hands of this} IGS Digital Solutions^{and it needs further interrogation}

¶27

¶28

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

¶29

In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and a perusal of the material available^on record, it appears that the petitioner is the Director of^IGS Digital Center and I Globe Solutions. The main allcgation against the petitioner is that respondent No.2 received^a call from the said Company, wherein, it is statcd that company is similar to Meeseva Services and it is related to Central Government and provides 3OO serviccs. Believing the same, respondent No.2 paid an amount of^Rs. l8OO/for registration. After payment, the application lvas stalled for activation of KYC. Further, on advice of said company, respondent No.2 paid an additional amount ol Rs.404O/through UPI but still the application was pending due to KYC error. The company further advised to opt for a zonal ID for an amount of Rs.3O,000/ - however, on suspicion respondent No.2 did not pay the said arnount. Further, on 06.01.2024, he went to IGS Solution Office 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 trefore the Police. Therefore, thc Police rcgistcr<:d thc casc

¶30

¶31

against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 417,419,42O ofIPC & Sections 66-D, 66-C ofthe IT Act, Sections 4 & 2O of the Act, 1885 and Sections 3 & 6 ofthe Acr, 1933.

¶32

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 thelt 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.

¶33

As seen from the rccord, the petitioner was also 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 a pparatus without possessing ttrc license of the Central Government and the punishment thereof. In the present case, there is no averment in the

¶34

¶35

complaint that the pelitioner is running the Digital Servicc Payment Ciatervay without any license, as such, lhe said scct ion s are not altrar:ted.

¶36

I l. However, it is pertinent to note that thc Indian Telecommunications Act, 2023 repealed existing legislative frameu,ork of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and the lndian Wirelcss Telegraphy Act, 1933 uide gazeLLe notilication daLed 24.12.2O23 owing to huge tcchnical advancements in the telecom sector and techrrologit.s.

¶37

The lurther contention of the learned counsel for thc petitioner is that petitioner is providing employmcnt and income through their platform. The Police have rvrongly projected the case and there is no dishonest intcntion in providing services. It also provides training and firllor.l' up services to all its users in order to facilitate ease of usage and customer satisfaction. Further, it is submittcd that there was difference in the PAN and Aadhar details more particularly with respect to date of birth, as sr-rch, KYC problem arose. Further, the petitioner informed that his complaint is pending with dispute resolution mechanism, without waiting for the same, respondent No.2 lodged a

¶38

¶39

complaint before the Police, as such, the averments do not constitute the offence under Scctions 417,419 & 42O IPC.

¶40

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 projccting that the said Company is related to the Ccntral Government Schemes and the samc is similar to the Mceseva services of the State Governmcnt. Further the petitioner threatened responde nt No.2 to compromisc the mattcr. However, the case is still under investigation and the allegations need to bc invcstigatcd- As such, proceedings against the petitioner for lhc offences cannot be quashed under Sections 417, 419 & 420 ot IPC.

¶41

{

¶42

In lhe result, the Criminal Pctition is allor.r,ed -in-part and the proceedings against the petitioner/ accused No.1 in FIR No.39 of 2024 of Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad for the offenccs punishable under Sections 66-C and 66-D of IT Act, Sections 4 & 2o of the Act, 1885 and Sections 3 & 6 of the Act, 1933 are hcreby quashed, while permitting the invcstigating officcr to procecd further against the^petitioner/ accuscd^No. I for the offcnces punishable under Section s 4 17 ,¹⁺ I 9 and 42o of lrc.

¶43

¶44

As a sequcl, miscellaneous applications, if any

¶45

pending, shall stands closed.

¶46

//TRUE COPY//

¶47

Sd/. T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT\ REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶48

To,

¶49

The XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad

¶50

The Station House Officer, Panjagutta PS, Hyderabad District

¶51

Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶52

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

¶53

Two CD Copies

VA/gh

?nc.

HIGH COURT

DATED:1910812024

t: La
.4
AJ .$ i
Cl
x. :,:
$
U \
r

ORDER

CRLP.No.1765 of 2024

@"q, (1\to\zt-r

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRLP

Prateek Chauvey v. The State of Telagnana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prateek Chauvey v. The State of Telagnana

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