Point of law: Section 2(e) defines Authority to mean the Unique Identification Authority of India Section 2(g) defines biometric information to be a photograph, a fingerprint, iris scan or such other biological attributes of an individual

ORDER :

The petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.88/2017 registered on 6-04-2017 for offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 469, 471, 420 120-B read with Section 34 of the IPC.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as follows:

The petitioner is Chief Executive Officer of M/s Edurays India which is a company dealing with e-governance, skill development, finance, education consultancy, manpower consultancy, higher education and institutions and claims to have expertise in Aadhaar enrolment. The petitioner enters into a service provider agreement on 1st April 2015 with Utility Forms Private Limited, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ‘Utility’ for short) for providing services mentioned in the contract. On 30th March 2016, the contract between the petitioner and the Utility was extended for a further period of two years.

3. It is the claim of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent-Deputy Director, Unique Identification Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as the ‘UIDAI’ for short) in the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology had addressed a permission letter for on boarding Utility as enrolment agency for UIDAI, particularly for the purpose of carrying out enrolments for Aadhaar in Karnataka. In terms of the agreement entered into between Utility and the petitioner, it is the claim of the petitioner that he was providing manpower resources to Utility such as enrolment operators and supervisors. Certain guidelines are laid down by the Circulars issued as to how UIDAI and the persons who have entered into the contract with UIDAI should function.

4. Things standing thus, on 6-04-2017 an FIR came to be registered on information dated 6-04-2016 for the various offences mentioned (supra). Accused No.1 is the petitioner. Accused No.2 is the one who entered into agreement with UIDAI and accused No.3 is the representative of Utility. The moment FIR is registered, the petitioner is before this Court calling in question the registration of FIR.

5. Heard Sri Murthy D. Naik, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri H. Shanthi Bhushan, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent No.2.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner functions strictly in terms of what was agreed between the Utility and himself. He would contend that there is no substance in the allegations made particularly for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and would further contend that the kits which have been alleged to have been supplied for free were never supplied for free and would submit that the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner is opposed to process of law.

7. On the other hand, Sri. H. Shanthi Bhushan, learned Assistant Solicitor General would vehemently refute the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that there is no substance in the contention. The allegation against the petitioner is not only of cheating under Section 420 of IPC but also under Sections 465, 468, 469, 471 and 120B of IPC. In terms of the scheme for empanelment of enrolment of agency what was permitted to the enrolment agency was to enter into an agreement with the petitioner and the like, only for securing manpower and not to sublet the job of issuance of Aadhaar card.

8. The action of enrolment agency in entering into a sub-contract with the petitioner has led to grave threat to national security as Aadhaar cards are recklessly issued to many who are also from neighboring countries. Such instance have emerged by the acts of the agencies like the petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel would contend that it is for the petitioner to come out clean in the trial as the investigation itself is not yet commenced in the case on hand.

9. Learned High Court Government Pleader Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., a