HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Dinesh Mehta, J.
Sanjay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 3037/2022
Decided On : 11-10-2022
CHALLENGE - FIR - Section 482 CrPC - Petitioner challenged FIR under Section 482 of CrPC for offences under IPC, RPGO, and IT Act
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged FIR under Section 482 of CrPC for offences under IPC, RPGO, and IT Act
Finding of the Court:
Court analyzed the allegations and arguments of both parties
Ratio Decidendi: Offences under Section 420 IPC and Section 66 of IT Act not made out; RPGO offences non-cognizable
Result: FIR quashed; Permission to file a complaint under RPGO within eight weeks
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 such offences is less than three years, these offences are non-cognizable and the police cannot directly register the FIR.
5. Mr. Bhurat, learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, argued that substantial amount of cash was found and seized during the course of search, which shows that the petitioner has cheated many people by way of alluring them to take part in the betting activities, which is otherwise illegal.
6. He argued that since prima-facie an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC was committed, the SHO concerned was justified in registering the FIR even for the offences under Sections 3 & 4 of RPGO and 66 of the IT Act.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, including the FIR.
8. A perusal of the FIR reveals that during the course of search the petitioner was found engaged in functioning as a bookie/broker for facilitating betting in cricket matches and during search six mobile phones, one TV, a note book containing accounts and cash of Rs. 7,700/- was seized.
9. Without expressing any opinion about petitioner's involvement or guilt qua the offences under Sections 3 & 4 of the RPGO, this Court cannot ignore this position that there are no traces of cheating.
10. Neither any person purportedly been cheated has approached the police raising grievance nor has anyone been claimed to have been cheated. On the basis of facts narrated in the FIR, which has been registered at the instance of none other than a police officer, it cannot be said that petitioner is guilty of cheating punishable under Section 420 of IPC.
11. Similar is the position qua the offence under Section 66 of the IT Act, which is also not made out.
12. Sections 66 and 43 of the IT Act read thus:
"66. Computer related offences. -If any person, dishonestly or fraudulently, does any act referred to in section 43, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees or with both.
Explanation. -For the purposes of this section,-
(a) the word "dishonestly" shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 24 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860);
(b) the word "fraudulently" shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 25 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."
43. [Penalty and compensation] for damage to computer, computer system, etc.- If any person without permission of the owner or any other person who is in charge of a computer, computer system or computer network,-
(a) accesses or secures access to such computer, computer system or computer network [or computer resource];
(b) downloads, copies or extracts any data, computer data base or information from such computer, computer system or computer network including information or data held or stored in any removab
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.