Back
M. NAGAPRASANNA
Phonepe Private Limited Registered – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka Represented by the C. E. N. Police Station – Respondent
ORDER (CAV)
The petitioner/Phonepe Private Limited is before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent/Police to conduct a comprehensive investigation in Crime No.193 of 2022 strictly in consonance with several enactments which the petitioner says that it is governed by. A consequent declaration is also sought that the notice under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., dated 07-12-2022 to be bad in law.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts germane are as follows:
The petitioner-M/s Phonepe Private Limited is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner is said to be a leading player in the digital payments ecosystem. The petitioner is a well known for its technology and user interface and is said to be pioneer in developing cutting edge digital payment solution platform. The application software that can be installed on all mobile phones through the operating system called as Phonepe app. The petitioner further avers in the petition that it is only an intermediary as defined under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’ for short) and facilitates services as a system provider and petitioner and o
(1) Notice under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. though requires to be specific and not a fishing expedition, is not per se illegal on suspicion of police to a money trail, which has a link between several acc....
The main legal point established is that the term 'Court' in Section 91 Cr.P.C. is not limited to the Court where the FIR was filed, and the power to seize documents for investigation purposes extend....
The right to seek document production under Section 91 of CrPC arises only at the defense stage, not during pre-charge proceedings.
The investigating officer cannot issue prohibitory directions under Section 91 of the CrPC regarding property transactions; such actions must comply with the M.P.I.D. Act.
Investigating officers cannot freeze bank accounts under Section 91 without following proper legal procedures detailed in Section 102.
The accused cannot invoke Section 91 during the investigation, but the court or any stakeholder can invoke it at any stage of the proceedings.
The court established that freezing a bank account in a cyber crime investigation must specify the amount involved and comply with procedural requirements; otherwise, such an action is illegal.
Court can implead Bank as a co-accused or additional accused by invoking Section 319 of Cr.P.C.
Section 91 Cr.P.C. does not apply to accused persons and cannot be invoked against them.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
