IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Atul Sreedharan, J.
Pratik Mohapatra - Appellants
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. - Respondent
Misc. Criminal Case No. 15776 of 2019
Decided On : 28-12-2020
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the quashment of the charge-sheet and all proceedings consequential to it. The petitioner was charged with offenses under IPC section 419 and IT Act section 66-D based on allegations of impersonation and fraud. The complainant and the petitioner had a personal relationship, and the petitioner was accused of creating fake email IDs and offering jobs to the complainant to deceive her and gain monetary benefit.Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's actions did not constitute offenses under the charged sections as there was no loss or damage caused to the complainant. The court noted that the complainant had received a significant amount of money from the petitioner and that the dispute between the parties seemed to be more of a civil nature.Ratio Decidendi:
The court emphasized the elements required to establish offenses under IPC section 419 (cheating by personation), IPC sections 468 and 471 (forgery), and IT Act section 66-D (cheating by personation using a computer resource). The court highlighted that the fraudulent acts must result in a loss or harm to the victim and that mere impersonation or creation of false documents alone does not constitute an offense. Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR, charge sheet, and all proceedings in the case.ORDER :
Atul Sreedharan, J.
1. The present petition has been filed seeking quashment of the charge-sheet dated 31.12.2017 and all proceedings consequential thereto. The charge-sheet arises from the FIR bearing Crime No. 136/2016 dated 22.10.2016 registered against the Petitioner for offences punishable under section 419 IPC and section 66-D of the IT Act at PS Cyber and Hi-tech Crime, Bhadbhada, Bhopal. The charge-sheet was eventually filed under sections 419, 468 and 471 IPC read with section 66-D of the Information Technology Act.
2. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and made over to the Court of the Third Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhopal, and was registered as ST No. 184/2018. Charges were framed by an order dated 11.1.2019 by the learned Trial Court under sections 419, 468, 471 and 467 IPC and under section 66-D of the Information Technology Act.
3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are as follows. The complainant, who is the Respondent No. 2 herein, and the Petitioner studied together at the National Law Institute University, Bhopal, and completed their studies in the year 2010. The Petitioner is stated to have joined a top law firm in Delhi and was working there, whereas the complainant could not find a job despite her best endeavours, as so stated by the Petitioner. It is also the case of the prosecution that the families of the Petitioner and the complainant were in talks with each other regarding the marriage of the Petitioner and the complainant which however could not materialize.
4. In the year 2013, the complainant is said to have started working on a contractual basis with D.L.A Piper, a Singapore based law firm. In December 2013, the complainant is stated to have resigned from her contractual position with the said Company and returned to India.
According to the State, the Petitioner assured the complainant that he would have her placed in a well-reputed job and that in furtherance to the said assurance, the complainant was promised several projects for the State Street Bank Trust (hereinafter referred to as "the SSBT") and other organizations. It is further the case of the State that the salary that was meant for the complainant was not transferred into her account directly by the client but into the account of the Petitioner, who thereafter transferred it into the account of the complainant. The complainant is stated to have tried moving to Singapore once again to work with the SSBT which did not work out. However, it is unequivocally admittedly by the State that several lacs of rupees were transferred from the bank account of the Petitioner to the bank account of the complainant.
5. It is alleged that the Petitioner created various fake email IDs and thereafter offered jobs from various fictitious companies/international organizations allegedly to deceive the complainant and get monetary benefit out of the work done by her. The Petitioner states that he has not received a single penny from any of the companies or international organizations whatsoever instead, he has transferred his hard-earned salary to the complainant only with a motive of helping her through a difficult patch on account of "their affections and long-standing emotional relationships" (as stated by the Petitioner in paragraph 8 of his petition). It is further alleged by the prosecution that on 1.6.2014 the parents of the Petitioner visited the complainant's house to talk about their marriage. However, as the complainant was unemployed and the recent demise of her father, the complainant's family could not fulfil the alleged demands of the Petitioner and his family which resulted in the deferment of their marriage. As regards this allegation, the Petitioner states that neither he nor his family members made any monetary demand, or a demand of any other nature on the complainant and her family. The Petitioner on his part alleges that he and his family were treated with the utmost disrespect by the complainant and refused t
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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.