ORDER :

Cr. M.P. No.2178 of 2015 & Cr. M.P. No. 394 of 2016

In these criminal miscellaneous petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in Sonari Police Station Case No. 156 of 2015 registered under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act.

2. Quashing of the entire criminal proceeding means, in this case, quashing of the First Information Report.

3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners in both the cases and counsel for the State assisted by the counsel for the opposite party No.2-informant. Petitioners are the accused in the Sonari P.S. Case 156/2015.

4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that by no stretch of imagination, from bare perusal of the First Information Report, any offence is made out. They submit that when no offence is made out from the First Information Report, then the First Information Report is liable to be quashed. They submit that merely not keeping up a promise cannot be said to be cheating in terms of Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that from the First Information Report also there is nothing to suggest that from the very inception of the transaction there was any dishonest intention. It is argued that when dishonest intention is lacking, no First Information Report could have been lodged under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that the allegation in the First Information Report is that the informant has invested some money with the petitioners Company, in lieu of some return and after repaying some installments, further installments could not be paid. As per the petitioners, this allegation, by no stretch of imagination makes out an offence under Section 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that there are no ingredients of the offence under the Information Technology Act and thus, incorporating Section 66D of the Information Technology Act in the First Information Report is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. On these grounds, counsel for the petitioners pray to quash the First Information Report.

5. Counsel for the opposite party No.2-informant submits that a First Information Report is not the encyclopedia and need not refer to each and every overt act. He submits that the informant was induced to deposit money in lieu of return, but, after making payment of some installments, the accused persons did not pay the installments, rather misappropriated the entire amount. He submits that from the First Information Report, it is clear that this misappropriation of the informant’s funds attracts offence punishable under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that the money, which was taken from the informant was transferred electronically to several other companies, which attracts offence under the Information Technology Act, thus, the penal provision of the Information Technology Act has been incorporated.

6. A First Information Report was registered by the informant showing the petitioners as accused persons. The First Information Report was registered as Sonari Police Station Case No.156 of 2015. In the First Information Report, the informant has stated that one Satpal Sachdev and his son Tarun Sachdev along with one Mohit Kanwatia were known to the informant’s family. As they were known to the informant’s family, the informant, his wife and his son had sent Rs.2,73,50,000/- in the account of Satpal Sachdev. It was the understanding between the parties that they will float a new company/firm and will induct the informant as a partner. It was agreed that till the new company is floated and starts functioning properly, informant will get 11% return on their investment. It is further stated that till 30.09.2013, the informant received his share of dividend, but, suddenly from 01.10.2013, without giving any information, payment of dividend was stopped. It is al