ORAL ORDER

1. This Special Criminal Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking direction to the respondent-police agency to reimburse the money that was illegally withdrawn by hacking the bank account of the petitioner by the culprits and to make prompt investigation if necessary, by the Cyber Cell and to file a final report in the Court against the culprits.

2. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Hardik Soni for the respondent-State.

3. Despite service of notice on respondent nos.2 and 3, non appears.

4. The factual matrix of the petition may briefly be stated as follows:- 4.1 The petitioner is running a company in the name and style Fasttrack Inc. and he is the proprietor of the same. He holds a bank account in Dena Bank at Para Bazar Branch, Rajkot. Alleging that his bank account was hacked and a sum of Rs.78,00,000/- was fraudulently withdrawn or transferred from his bank account by some unknown culprits, a report was lodged by him on 22. 03.2018 with DCB Police, Rajkot.

4.2 While investigation in the said case is pending, the present petition was filed with the aforesaid reliefs and other reliefs made in the petition.

4.3 The main grievance of the petitioner is that the investigation is not being properly made and the services of the Cyber Law experts are not used during the course of the investigation and it is essential to use the services of Cyber Law experts to find out the real culprits, who have actually perpetrated the aforesaid offence. It is also his grievance that the money that was fraudulently withdrawn or transferred from his account is to be reimbursed to him and that a necessary direction to that effect is to be given to the respondent-police authority.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.Hardik Soni, on instructions, submits that the services of the experts relating to Cyber Law are in fact utilized and despite using their services and making all necessary efforts to find out the culprits, the police could not identify the real culprits, who have actually perpetrated the aforesaid offence and fraudulently hacked the bank account of the petitioner and illegally withdrawn and transferred the money from his bank account. He submits that the ‘A’ summary report was already filed before the concerned Magistrate to that effect on 15.02.2020.

6. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that when several similar offences of hacking the bank accounts and the money from the banks of various persons are illegally withdrawn that several reports came to be lodged with the police in the State of Gujarat and as the police could not detect the said offences and trace out the real culprits, earlier, the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 27.07.2018 ordered to transfer the investigation relating to the State Cyber crimes to the Cyber Cell, Rajkot forthwith. So, he contends that the investigation of this case is also to be transferred to the Cyber Cell, Rajkot forthwith.

7. As noticed supra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the service of the experts of the Cyber Cell were already utilized in this crime and despite using their services, the real culprits could not be traced out and as such, ‘A’ summary report to that effect was filed in the trial court.

8. When that be the case, when the services of the experts of the Cyber Cell were already utilized and despite using their services that the real culprits could not be traced, and more particularly as ‘A’ summary report to that effect was already filed in the trial court, if still the petitioner got any grievance, he has to pursue his remedy before the trial court by way of filing a protest petition before the trial court and opposing the said ‘A’ summary report.

9. In fact, when ‘A’ summary report was filed before the trial court, as per the procedure established under law, the learned Magistrate has to issue notice to the complainant and then hear him and if any protest p