State of U.P v. Saurabh) under sections
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:60057 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4077 of 2025 Applicant :- Saurabh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Himanshu Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Legal Reasoning
12. A similar view has been taken by this Court in the cases of Archana Rana v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, Deepak Gaba and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another and Mariam Fasihuddin and Another v. State by Adugodi Police Station and Another." 5. He further relied upon judgement rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Mariam Fasihuddin & Another vs. State by Adugodi Police Station & Another, decided on 22.01.2024 in Criminal Appeal No.335 of 2024 [arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.2877 of 2021], wherein emphasis has been made under para-10 only, which is as under:- "10. Section 420 IPC provides that whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy, the whole or any part of valuable security, or anything, which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be liable to be punished for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Further, Section 415 IPC distinctly defines the term 'cheating'. The provision elucidates that an act marked by fraudulent or dishonest intentions will be categorised as 'cheating' if it is intended to induce the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, causing damage or harm to that person." 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application as well as rebutted the stand taken up by learned counsel for applicant and submitted that during investigation it has been revealed that it is the applicant who entered into personal information available with the portal over which certain personal information of opposite party no.2 was available and obtained salary slip, which has been used for his own purpose and benefit, the information in shape of salary slip which has been obtained by husband of opposite party no.2, through applicant and submitted before learned court concerned and the maintenance which was extended in favour of opposite party no.2 was later on stopped through which husband of opposite party no.2 procured benefit of non-extension of monthly maintenance, which was directed to be paid by the husband of opposite party no.2 to opposite party no.2 and the same has been transpired during investigation that the salary slip which was obtained by way of using fake ID by the applicant and provided to husband of opposite party no.2 submitted before learned court concerned in the proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C. for receiving some of benefit and the same has been admitted by the applicant during recording statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. 7. It is also submitted by learned A.G.A. that during investigation the fake ID which was used from electronic device that was the mobile number pertains to applicant only over which the charge- sheet has been submitted by concerned Investigating Officer, which is having no illegality therein and as such the instant application is liable to be dismissed. 8. After having rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties, the plea taken up by learned counsel for applicant that there is hardly any attraction of section 66C of I.T. Act and section 420 I.P.C. has to be corroborated with the fact of case which is dependent upon the strict proof of evidence along with examination of submissions recorded at the behest of prosecution witnesses as well as defense witnesses, but at the same time it is crystal clear that electronic device through which fake ID has been created and by way of using the same fake ID of opposite party no.2 certain personal information has been taken up by way of impersonating to fake ID is directly attracting section 66C of I.T. Act as well as section 420 I.P.C., so far as regarding obtaining any benefit out of the same, it cannot be presumed only on the averments made in the instant application that no benefit incurred in favour of applicant, since without having any ulterior motive or benefit there was hardly any cause of action in favour of applicant to create fake ID and to use by his own electronic device and as such these questions of fact can only be ascertained by learned trial court. 9. In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances, there is hardly any merit involved in the instant application, which compelled this Court to intervene in the order which impugned the present application. 10. The instant application stands dismissed accordingly. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 Saif Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State. 2. The instant application has been preferred for quashing charge- sheet dated 20.02.2024, cognizance/summoning order dated 01.05.2024 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.7284 of 2024 (State of U.P. vs. Saurabh) under sections 420 I.P.C. and section 66C of I.T. Act arising out of Case Crime No.549 of 2023, P.S. New Agra, District- Agra, pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that section 420 I.P.C. is not attracted against the applicant since the essential ingredients involved therein does not contain any property of information, which strictly belongs to the applicant and same has been transmitted or transferred to obtain some benefit out of the same. In respect of section 66C of I.T., learned counsel for applicant further submitted that no benefit has been incurred in favour of applicant in respect of making fake signature, unique identity and creation of fake e-mail ID, which does not come under the ambit of section 66C of I.T. Act. 4. For substantiating his submissions, learned counsel for applicant relied upon judgement rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of A.M. Mohan vs. The State represented by SHO and Another, decided on 20.03.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. .. of 2024 [arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.9598 of 2022], wherein emphasis has been made under para-11 and 12, which are as under :- "11. This Court, in the case of Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy and Another v. Sudha Seetharam and Another has culled out the ingredients to constitute the offence under Sections 415 and 420 of IPC, as under: "15. Section 415 of the Penal Code reads thus: "415. Cheating.—Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat"." 16. The ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating are as follows: 16.1. There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him: 16.1.1. The person so induced should be intentionally induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or 16.1.2. The person so induced should be intentionally induced to do or to omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and 16.2. In cases covered by 16.1.2. above, the act or omission should be one which caused or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property. 17. A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of the offence. A person who dishonestly induces another person to deliver any property is liable for the offence of cheating. 18. Section 420 of the Penal Code reads thus: "420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine." 19. The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 are as follows: 19.1. A person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415; ans 19.2. The person cheated must be dishonestly induced to (a) deliver property to any person; or (b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security. 20. Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under Section 420."