IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA W.P.Nos.53395-53396 & 53452/2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. Shri. Mohan Lal Agrawal S/o Sri Shankar Lal Agrawal Aged about 33 years R/o. H.602, SNN Raj Lake View Apartment, Bannerghatta Road, Belakhalli, Bangalore-560 076.
2. Shri. Murali Lal Agrawal S/o Sri Shankar Lal Agrawal Aged about 33 years R/o H.602, SNN Raj Lake View Apartment, Bannerghatta Road, Belakhalli, Bangalore-560 076.
3. Shri. Ashwin Bora S/o Sri Kushalehand Bora Aged about 30 years R/o 505, 4th Floor, Sriven Sky Park Apartment, Begur Road, Doddakamanahalli, Bangalore-560 083.
(By Sri M.S. Shyam Sundar, Advocate) …Petitioners AND:
1. The State of Karnataka by Cyber Crime Police Station CID Division, Bangalore City, Bangalore-02.
2. Mr. Ramakrishna Ghattage S/o Shivaji Rao, Age 33 years, Hallepate Voni, Kamal Basha Masjid Road, Savanur, Haveri District-581 110.
…Respondents (By Sri S. Rachaiah, HCGP for R1) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash case arising out of FIR in Crime No.14/2017 vide Annexure-B of respondent Police Station and further investigation thereof insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Perused the records.
2. The respondent Police have registered a case in Crime No.14/2017 for the offences under Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of Information Technology Act, 2000 and also under Sections 419 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, against some persons by name Prasad, Deepak and Barun Kapoor.
3. Admittedly, the petitioners name does not find a place in the First Information Report. The First Information Report discloses that the accused by name Prasad called over phone the complainant, and introduced himself and Global Research Team Company and sent details of the Company through mail. The Global Research Team Company has a good investment plan called Smart Trading Plan and told that in this plan if complainant invest Rs.25,000/- of amount, after one week the amount will become one Lakh as a profit and he has given the account number of State Bank of India, J.P.Nagar Branch, Bangalore. As per the advice of accused the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- and after depositing the amount accused has given a number as CRMID – 126875 for the complainant’s deposit amount and told that the deposited amount is invested in share market to purchase crude oil and complainant would get one lakh rupees as profit for one day and further told that the profit amount was again deposited in another position to purchase Gold and the amount will become Rs.7,25,000/- profit for two days and advices to deposit more amount. Believing that, the complainant further deposited an amount of Rs.1,76,000/- to the account of accused Barun Kapoor, SBI account, but nothing has been received by him and it is alleged that the accused has cheated the complainant.
4. After registration of the case, the police have started the investigation and during the course of investigation they also found that some other accused persons i.e. petitioners herein are also responsible for the above said activities in the Company. It is specifically stated in the investigation report that during the course of investigation they have arrested the petitioners and it revealed that the accused persons have opened the bank account in different persons’ name by collecting the documents and photos from the people who visits for interview at the accused Company and they created some fake accounts and obtained money in such manner. Therefore, the police have felt that some more investigation is required as there is involvement of the accused persons in opening fake Websites, Email ID and collecting money from different persons. Under the above said circumstances, though the name of the petitioners does not find a place in the First Information Report, but during the course of investigation some doubt has been created to the police that they are also involved in getting opening some fake bank accounts and collecting money from different persons. Therefore, at the threshold, the police have to complete the investigation to ascertain as to whether these persons are actually involved in the case or not.
5. Be the facts may, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the police cannot invoked Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code as a synonymous provisions which confirmed in Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as there is a over riding effect of all the other penal provisions. In view of Section 8 of the said Act it is made clear that, mere registration of FIR does not mean to say that the accused persons had actually committed those offences. During the course of investigation and at the time of filing of a charge sheet, the Investigating Officer has to ascertain which are all the offences actually committed by the accused. If Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the IT Act have any over-riding effect on Sections 419 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, at the time of filing of the charge sheet the same has to be taken care off by the Investigating Officer. Even otherwise as per the provision under the IPC, Section 71 of IPC describes limit of punishment of offence made up of several offences- where anything which is an offence is made up of parts, any of which parts is itself an offence, the offender shall not be punished with the punishment of more than one of such offences, unless it be so expressly provided. Therefore, even if the charge sheet is filed for the above said offences, it is the domain of the Court to ascertain whether Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC have got over lapping the effect on Sections 66(C) or 66(D) of the IT Act. Therefore, at this stage, at the threshold, at the time of registration of the FIR or investigating the matter, even though this provisions are invoked, it will not affect the entire investigation. Under the above said circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitions deserve to be dismissed at this stage.
6. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed.
However, it is made clear that, if any adverse report is filed by the police against the petitioners, the petitioners are at liberty to approach this Court challenging the said report.
ap* Sd/- JUDGE