Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Gagan Harsh Sharma vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 October, 2018
Bench: A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan
1
ITEM NO.10 +16 COURT NO.4 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 8274/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18-09-2018
in CRLAB No. 1823/2017 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
Bombay)
GAGAN HARSH SHARMA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. )
WITH
SLP(CRL.) NO. 8371/2018
FOR ADMISSION AND I.R. AND I.A. NO. 142191/2018 – EXEMPTION FROM
FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT )
Date : 03-10-2018 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. V. Balaji, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. M.S.M. Asaithambi, Adv.
Mr. Atul Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Sripradha Krishnan, Adv.
Mr. C. Kanna, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date: 2018.10.05 It is pointed out by Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel 17:00:52 IST Reason: appearing for the petitioner, that the First Information Report(FIR) against the petitioner is registered primarily under 2 Sections 43, 65 and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 though Sections 408 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) have also been added thereby making the case of criminal breach of trust and cheating as well. He has drawn our attention to the judgment of this Court in the case of “Sharat Babu Digumarti Versus Government (NCT of Delhi)” (2017) 2 SCC 18, wherein it is held that once the special provisions having the overriding effect do cover a criminal act and the offender, he gets out of the net of IPC and that is also when the case is under the Information Technology Act.
Be that as it may, it is further pointed out by Mr. Rohatgi that insofar as inclusion of Sections 408 and 420 of the IPC is concerned, the petitioner has already filed quashing petition bearing No. 4361/2018 wherein notice has been issued and the petitioner has also been granted interim protection against arrest vide order dated 01.10.2018.
Having regard to the aforesaid development, since the matter is now being examined by the High Court in the aforesaid context namely, whether the case is primarily under Sections 43,65 and 66 and no case can be filed under Sections 408 and 420 of the IPC and also the petitioner has been given interim protection therein, it is not necessary to deal with the subject matter of this petition. We may record that this petition is filed against the order of the High Court rejecting the anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Suffice is to state that in the aforesaid criminal proceedings the High Court shall examine the matter without being influenced by any 3 observations made by the High Court in the impugned order. We may also clarify that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
(ASHWANI THAKUR) (RAJINDER KAUR) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER