ORDER

The petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the proceedings initiated against her in C.C.No.4688/2013 by the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court' for short) for the offences punishable under Section 417 of IPC read with Section 66C and D of Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2000' for short).

2. The respondent No.2 filed a private complaint stating that the petitioner herein is his wife and that she had engaged the services of a Chartered Accountant to hack into the website of Directorate of Income Tax and secured the details of Form-26AS of the respondent No.2, by creating a fake user name and a fake user unique password. The private complaint was referred to investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The Cyber Crime Police Station investigated the offence and filed a charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 66C and D of the Act, 2000 and Section 417 of IPC. The trial Court took cognizance of the said offence and issued process to the accused. The accused entered appearance and was released on bail. The accused filed an application for discharge primarily contending that she had initiated a proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against the respondent No.2 herein claiming maintenance for herself and her child at the Court in Ghaziabad and in order to demonstrate to the Court that the respondent No.2 had sufficient income to pay maintenance, she had obtained the details of Form-26AS to produce it before the Court. She also contended that the offence under section 417 of IPC and Section 66C and D of the Act, 2000 was not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The trial Court however in terms of the order dated 08.07.2016 rejected the application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner, holding that prima facie, the accused had committed the offences and that the defence set up by the accused had to be established after a trial of the case.

3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed Crl.R.P.No.596/2016 before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court too held that it is for the Court to decide whether the PAN number, user ID and password of a registered PAN user is confidential information and whether the wrongful procurement of such details by furnishing a fake user ID and a fake password would amount to a crime or not is a matter for trial and therefore, rejected the revision petition in terms of the order dated 23.03.2017.

4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by both the Courts, the petitioner has filed this petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court took cognizance for the offence punishable under section 417 of IPC and Section 66C and D of the Act, 2000 without even considering whether the charge sheet disclosed such an offence. He submitted that the respondent No.2 was not induced by the petitioner to part with any information and therefore, an offence of cheating as defined under Section 415 of IPC was not made out. Consequently, the trial Court could not have taken cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC. He further submits that an offence under section 66C of the Act, 2000 would be attracted only when a person fraudulently or dishonestly makes use of the electronic signature, password or any other unique identification, feature of any other person. He submits that explanation (a) and (b) to Section 66 of the Act, 2000 states that for the purpose of Section 66, the word 'dishonestly' and 'fraudulently' shall have the same meaning assigned to it in Sections 24 and 25 of IPC, respectively. He submits that Sections 24 and 25 of IPC defines the word 'dishonestly' and 'fraudulently' as an intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person is said to do that thing "dishonestly" and "fraudulently". He therefore submits that there is no dishonest or fraudulent intent