Back
DINESH MEHTA
Sanjay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
Key Points: - The FIR qua offences under Section 420 IPC and Section 66 IT Act not made out. (!) - RPGO offences (Sections 3 & 4) are non-cognizable due to punishment being less than three years; police cannot register FIR for those. (!) - FIR No. 248/2021 is quashed, with permission to file a RPGO complaint within eight weeks if desired. (!) (!) - Court avoided expressing guilt on RPGO offences and allowed future filing under RPGO. (!) (!) - The role of the SHO in registering the FIR based on search without complainant evidence is scrutinized. (!) (!) - Section 66 IT Act requires specific elements of dishonesty/fraud; absence of cheating undermines it. (!) (!) - Judgment clarifies that Section 66 IT Act presumes offence only when data misuse/unauthorized access is established. (!) - Record shows six mobile phones, cash, and accounts seized; no traces of cheating. (!) (!) - The stay on quashing applies; stay application disposed of. (!)
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Mehta, J. - By way of the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') the petitioner has challenged the FIR No. 248/2021 registered against him at Police Station Sadul Shahar, Sri Ganganagar for the offences under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code; under Sections 3 & 4 of the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the 'RPGO') and Section 66 of Information & Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IT Act').
2. Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner after reading the contents of the FIR, vehemently argued that no offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC can be said to have been made out against the petitioner, as there is no allegation of cheating.
3. It is also argued that no one has complained of being cheated and surprisingly it is the SHO concerned, who has registered the FIR on the basis of search, which was made at petitioner's residential house on 11.10.2021.
4. It was also argued by learned counsel that maybe, ingredients of offence punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of the RPGO are present, but since the sentence prescribed for suc
Offences under Section 420 IPC and Section 66 of IT Act not made out; RPGO offences non-cognizable
The court established that licensed bookies must adhere to the terms of their licenses, and allegations of illegal betting and tax evasion can lead to criminal liability under the Karnataka Police Ac....
Impersonation on social media without evidence of deception or wrongful gain does not constitute cheating under IPC or IT Act.
The investigation in a non-cognizable offence at the hands of the police without permission of the competent Magistrate is impermissible.
The court reiterated that a mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is established, quashing the FIR due to lack of supporting evidence....
The distinction between civil and criminal liability, emphasizing the need for fraudulent, dishonest intention to establish criminal liability.
The Information Technology Act's provisions take precedence over the Indian Penal Code for computer-related offences, but do not encompass the element of deceit required for cheating under IPC.
Mere non-payment in business supply transaction does not constitute cheating under IPC Section 420 absent proof of dishonest inducement at inception; such civil disputes warrant FIR quashing to preve....
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
