JUDGMENT :

Shamim Ahmed, J.

1. Heard Sri Ujjawal Satsangi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 through video conferencing, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief :

“(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the record and quashing the impugned case crime/FIR No. 0009/2020 dated 07.01.2020, under Section 66D of IT (Amendment) Act, 2008, P.S. Kidwai Nagar, District- Kanpur Nagar.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to arrest the management or employees of the petitioner company in pursuance of the impugned case crime/FIR No. 0009/2020 dated 07.01.2020, under Section 66D of IT (Amendment) Act, 2008, P.S. Kidwai Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to seize the Bank Account of the petitioner i.e. A/c No. 36190836357 at State Bank of India, Branch KIIT Square, Bhubaneshwar.

(iv) To issue any other writ or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(v) To award the costs in favour of the petitioner.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's company is a Financial Technology Startup, recognized under the Companies Act, 2013, Department of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade. The work of the company is to promoting digital financial transaction and works in relation with nationalized and private sector banks to provide mobile banking penetration in the rural area of the country. Evidently, the petitioner's company facilitate the online transaction of money and provide ability to the customers to have digital financial presence. In the event of the entire process, the petitioner's company do not keep any amount and transfer the entire deposited amount in hands of the customers for their utilization. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent no. 4 received a call for KYC update on his phone on 04.01.2020. Thereafter, the respondent no. 4 downloaded an Application i.e. Team Viewer App and soon Rs. 10,00,000/- were deducted from the bank accounts of the respondent no. 4, his son Akash Jain and his wife Meena Jain. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Bank of the petitioner received an e-mail from Cyber Crime Cell of Kanpur Nagar on 18.01.2020 and in virtue thereof, the bank account of the petitioner was seized. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the money was transferred from the account of respondent no. 4 to the bank account of Saddam Hussain and thereafter Saddam Hussain transferred the amount to M/s Systematic Services Pvt. Ltd. and the same was further transferred to the bank account of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no case under Section 66D of I.T. (Amendment) Act, 2008 is made out against the petitioner and prays to quash the impugned F.I.R.

4. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 have jointly submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR is correct and it is the matter of investigation and cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner and there is no justification for quashing of the impugned FIR.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made reference to the judgment of the Apex court in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal), AIR 1992 SC 604. Learned counsel for the petitioner in particularly, referred to paragraph 108(7) of the said judgment which is quoted herein for ready reference.

"108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have ext