Microsoft Corporation (India) Private Limited v. State of U.P. and others) arising out of Case Crime no

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for State.

2. Present application has been preferred to set aside the order dated 15.07.2024 passed by Additional District and Session Judge, Court no. 5, Gautam Buddha Nagar in Criminal Revision no. 205 of 2022 (Microsoft Corporation (India) Private Limited vs. State of U.P. and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 699 of 2018 (Narpendra Kashyap vs. Abhinesh Pratap Singh and others) under sections 419, 420 of IPC and Section 66 of Information Technology (Amended) Act, 2008, registered at PS- Noida-Sector 58, Commissionerate, Gautam Buddha Nagar (Annexure no. 1 to the affidavit) during the pendency of instant criminal misc. application before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that applicants are doing business in I.T. and I.T.E.S Sectors being directors of registered company name and style Beno Support Technologies Private Limited. Opposite party no. 3 is a Microsoft Company and opposite party no. 2 namely Nripendra Kashyap is employee of the opposite party no. 3. Over the complaint made to the concerned police authorities at the behest of opposite party no. 2 present FIR bearing Case Crime no. 699 of 2018 has been lodged against applicant no. 1 and three other co-accused persons alleging therein that opposite party no. 2 came to know from some sources that at some places in Noida, the I.T. companies are committing cheating and fraud by utilizing the name of Microsoft and are getting money from foreign individuals through internet in favour of owner and authorities of the Beno Support Technology Private Limited company. Opposite party no. 2 moved application before concerned Senior Superintendent of Police, pursuant to which a police team was provided to opposite party no. 2 who along with some other Engineer and expert of Microsoft company raided the company Beno Support Technology Pvt. Ltd. Noida and they found that certain persons were working at the aforesaid location and two persons namely Krishnanand and Golden were found engaged in duping foreign nationals in the name of Microsoft company. Certain electronic devices were also recovered from the said spot.

4. During investigation, Forensic Science Laboratory report of device recovered was received wherein it has been mentioned that no digital data as alleged by opposite party no. 2 in FIR was found and thereafter Investigating Officer submitted final report dated 05.04.2019 in court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Gautam Buddha Nagar. Being aggrieved with final report dated 05.04.2019, opposite party nos. 2 and 3 filed protest petition before court concerned which has been allowed vide order dated 03.03.2020 directing for further investigation into the matter. After re-investigation, concerned Investigating Officer prepared S.C.D. no. 15 on 16.10.2019 whereby supported the previous final report no. 1744 of 2019 submitted by previous Investigating Officer. Thereafter, opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have filed second protest petition against the said final report but the same was dismissed vide order dated 31.03.2022 passed by IInd, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar. Being aggrieved with order dated 31.03.2022, opposite party nos. 2 and 3 filed Criminal Revision before learned District and Sessions Judge, Surajpur, Gautam Buddha Nagar wherein notices were served upon applicants which was duly replied by them, but the said revision has been allowed vide impugned order dated 15.07.2024 by way of setting aside the order dated 31.03.2022 and remitting the matter back to learned court of IInd, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar for passing fresh order.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for applicants that the revision was filed by opposite party nos. 2 and 3 against the applicants and one another company namely Benovellient Technology mentioning that applicants are directors of said company, whereas in fact the name of said company was neither present in the FIR nor in any statement recorded by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 as such said revision was not maintainable. It is also pertinent to mention that applicant no. 2 was not in existence when the complaint was made to the police authorities by opposite party no. 2. At the time of incident i.e. 28th November, 2018, Benovellient Company (respondent no. 2 in the revision) was not in existence but opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are making false allegations against the said Company and its officials i.e. applicants herein. The case has been investigated twice by the Investigating Agency and there is nothing left to investigate the matter further. Hence, impugned order dated 15.07.2024 passed by revisional authority is liable to be quashed and set aside.

6. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through instant application but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

7. Since, only legal argument has been raised by learned counsel for applicants, process to issue notice to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 is hereby dispensed with.

8. After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, this Court finds that being aggrieved with order dated 31.03.2022 through which second protest petition preferred at the behest of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 has been dismissed, the same has been put under challenge while preferring criminal revision no. 205 of 2022 and the same has been allowed vide judgment and order dated 15.07.2024 through which matter has been remitted back to learned court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, IInd, Gautam Budh Nagar for re-considering the protest petition preferred at the behest of opposite party no. 2 and 3 on the basis of finding arrived by learned court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court no. 5, Gautam Budh Nagar which is contrary to the catena of judgements rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court for instance in case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 and other matters wherein, it has been time and again held that the revisional court is having a very limited scope while considering revision preferred by any aggrieved party and the same can only be adjudicated only on two basis i.e. perversity and illegality involved in the impugned order. The perversity can be pointed out on the basis of some facts which has been dealt contrary by learned original court and illegality on the basis of non-consideration of the procedure or otherwise mandated as per law by learned original court. In the instant matter the entire finding has been dealt by learned revisional court on the basis of fact of the case which is not permissible in the eye of law and learned revisional court again directed to learned concerned court for reconsidering the matter on the basis of finding drawn by learned revisional court which is not on the basis of perversity or illegality. Under the jurisdiction of Section 482 Cr.P.C. which conferred inherent powers to this Court, the order which impugned the present application has to be judicially scrutinized in respect of the factum of the matter along with legal purview wherein protest petition has already been dismissed on the basis of crystal clear recording of facts which does not provide the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 to assail the core issue of Investigating Officer for preferring final report in favour of the applicant and as such impugned order dated 15.07.2024 passed by Additional District and Session Judge, Court no. 5, Gautam Buddha Nagar in Criminal Revision no. 205 of 2022 (Microsoft Corporation (India) Private Limited vs. State of U.P. and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 699 of 2018 (Narpendra Kashyap vs. Abhinesh Pratap Singh and others) under sections 419, 420 of IPC and Section 66 of Information Technology (Amended) Act, 2008, registered at PS- Noida-Sector 58, Commissionerate, Gautam Buddha Nagar and the consequent proceeding thereof are hereby set aside.

9. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. stands allowed accordingly. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 Shaswat SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for State.

2. Present application has been preferred to set aside the order dated 15.07.2024 passed by Additional District and Session Judge, Court no. 5, Gautam Buddha Nagar in Criminal Revision no. 205 of 2022 (Microsoft Corporation (India) Private Limited vs. State of U.P. and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 699 of 2018 (Narpendra Kashyap vs. Abhinesh Pratap Singh and others) under sections 419, 420 of IPC and Section 66 of Information Technology (Amended) Act, 2008, registered at PS- Noida-Sector 58, Commissionerate, Gautam Buddha Nagar (Annexure no. 1 to the affidavit) during the pendency of instant criminal misc. application before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that applicants are doing business in I.T. and I.T.E.S Sectors being directors of registered company name and style Beno Support Technologies Private Limited. Opposite party no. 3 is a Microsoft Company and opposite party no. 2 namely Nripendra Kashyap is employee of the opposite party no. 3. Over the complaint made to the concerned police authorities at the behest of opposite party no. 2 present FIR bearing Case Crime no. 699 of 2018 has been lodged against applicant no. 1 and three other co-accused persons alleging therein that opposite party no. 2 came to know from some sources that at some places in Noida, the I.T. companies are committing cheating and fraud by utilizing the name of Microsoft and are getting money from foreign individuals through internet in favour of owner and authorities of the Beno Support Technology Private Limited company. Opposite party no. 2 moved application before concerned Senior Superintendent of Police, pursuant to which a police team was provided to opposite party no. 2 who along with some other Engineer and expert of Microsoft company raided the company Beno Support Technology Pvt. Ltd. Noida and they found that certain persons were working at the aforesaid location and two persons namely Krishnanand and Golden were found engaged in duping foreign nationals in the name of Microsoft company. Certain electronic devices were also recovered from the said spot.

4. During investigation, Forensic Science Laboratory report of device recovered was received wherein it has been mentioned that no digital data as alleged by opposite party no. 2 in FIR was found and thereafter Investigating Officer submitted final report dated 05.04.2019 in court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Gautam Buddha Nagar. Being aggrieved with final report dated 05.04.2019, opposite party nos. 2 and 3 filed protest petition before court concerned which has been allowed vide order dated 03.03.2020 directing for further investigation into the matter. After re-investigation, concerned Investigating Officer prepared S.C.D. no. 15 on 16.10.2019 whereby supported the previous final report no. 1744 of 2019 submitted by previous Investigating Officer. Thereafter, opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have filed second protest petition against the said final report but the same was dismissed vide order dated 31.03.2022 passed by IInd, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar. Being aggrieved with order dated 31.03.2022, opposite party nos. 2 and 3 filed Criminal Revision before learned District and Sessions Judge, Surajpur, Gautam Buddha Nagar wherein notices were served upon applicants which was duly replied by them, but the said revision has been allowed vide impugned order dated 15.07.2024 by way of setting aside the order dated 31.03.2022 and remitting the matter back to learned court of IInd, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar for passing fresh order.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for applicants that the revision was filed by opposite party nos. 2 and 3 against the applicants and one another company namely Benovellient Technology mentioning that applicants are directors of said company, whereas in fact the name of said company was neither present in the FIR nor in any statement recorded by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 as such said revision was not maintainable. It is also pertinent to mention that applicant no. 2 was not in existence when the complaint was made to the police authorities by opposite party no. 2. At the time of incident i.e. 28th November, 2018, Benovellient Company (respondent no. 2 in the revision) was not in existence but opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are making false allegations against the said Company and its officials i.e. applicants herein. The case has been investigated twice by the Investigating Agency and there is nothing left to investigate the matter further. Hence, impugned order dated 15.07.2024 passed by revisional authority is liable to be quashed and set aside.

6. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through instant application but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

7. Since, only legal argument has been raised by learned counsel for applicants, process to issue notice to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 is hereby dispensed with.

8. After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, this Court finds that being aggrieved with order dated 31.03.2022 through which second protest petition preferred at the behest of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 has been dismissed, the same has been put under challenge while preferring criminal revision no. 205 of 2022 and the same has been allowed vide judgment and order dated 15.07.2024 through which matter has been remitted back to learned court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, IInd, Gautam Budh Nagar for re-considering the protest petition preferred at the behest of opposite party no. 2 and 3 on the basis of finding arrived by learned court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court no. 5, Gautam Budh Nagar which is contrary to the catena of judgements rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court for instance in case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 and other matters wherein, it has been time and again held that the revisional court is having a very limited scope while considering revision preferred by any aggrieved party and the same can only be adjudicated only on two basis i.e. perversity and illegality involved in the impugned order. The perversity can be pointed out on the basis of some facts which has been dealt contrary by learned original court and illegality on the basis of non-consideration of the procedure or otherwise mandated as per law by learned original court. In the instant matter the entire finding has been dealt by learned revisional court on the basis of fact of the case which is not permissible in the eye of law and learned revisional court again directed to learned concerned court for reconsidering the matter on the basis of finding drawn by learned revisional court which is not on the basis of perversity or illegality. Under the jurisdiction of Section 482 Cr.P.C. which conferred inherent powers to this Court, the order which impugned the present application has to be judicially scrutinized in respect of the factum of the matter along with legal purview wherein protest petition has already been dismissed on the basis of crystal clear recording of facts which does not provide the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 to assail the core issue of Investigating Officer for preferring final report in favour of the applicant and as such impugned order dated 15.07.2024 passed by Additional District and Session Judge, Court no. 5, Gautam Buddha Nagar in Criminal Revision no. 205 of 2022 (Microsoft Corporation (India) Private Limited vs. State of U.P. and others) arising out of Case Crime no. 699 of 2018 (Narpendra Kashyap vs. Abhinesh Pratap Singh and others) under sections 419, 420 of IPC and Section 66 of Information Technology (Amended) Act, 2008, registered at PS- Noida-Sector 58, Commissionerate, Gautam Buddha Nagar and the consequent proceeding thereof are hereby set aside.

9. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. stands allowed accordingly. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 Shaswat SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad