Madhya Pradesh High Court
Alibaba Cloud (India)Llp vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 September, 2021
Author: Sunita Yadav
Bench: Sunita Yadav
1 MCRC-36359-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC-36359-2021
(ALIBABA CLOUD (INDIA)LLP Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
4
Jabalpur, Dated : 09-09-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing and hybrid mode.
Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Sankalp Kochar,
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Yadvendra Dwivedi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No.14222/2021 for taking additional documents on record.
For the reasons stated in the application, I.A.No.14222/2021 is allowed and the additional documents are taken on record.
Also heard on I.A.No.13079/2021 for grant of interim relief. Heard both the counsels for the parties and perused the case diary of Crime No. 81/2021 for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and 66-D of the Information Technology Act registered at PS-Cyber and High-Tech Crime, Bhopal (M.P.).
The present application has been filed by the petitioner for grant of interim relief for restoration of the operation of the account during the pendency of the captioned application.
In the present case, police station-Cyber and High-Tech Crime, Bhopal (M.P.) is investigating Crime No.81/21 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and 66-D of the Information Technology Act. The material available in the case diary shows that the accused persons have duped the complainant and received Rs.97,00,000/- from him in different bank accounts. The said amount has been transferred to Chinese and Pakistani citizens as cryptocurrency. Prime facie, from the evidence collected, it appears that an International Gang is operating to extort money from the people by cheating. The report of Cyber Cell, Bhopal also reveals that a fake web-page was being 2 MCRC-36359-2021 hosted by the accused persons on Alibaba Clouds and the petitioner also provided technical support to the accused persons. There were eleven transactions between the accused persons and the petitioner. As per the facts available in the case diary, during the investigation, when a registered notice was sent to the registered address of the petitioner, it remained unserved which shows that the petitioner is not working from that office.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this is not a fit case for grant of interim relief to the petitioner.
I.A.No.13079/2021 is rejected.
List the case after a week.
(SUNITA YADAV) JUDGE Digitally signed by BIJU BABY b Date: 2021.09.14 16:30:42 +05'30'