Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Chaturvedi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 26 May, 2025
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89022 Court No. - 74 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18861 of 2025 Applicant :- Rajesh Chaturvedi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kartikeya Saran,Mayank Awasthi,Suchita Mehrotra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Arun Kumar Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Ms. Suchita Mehrotra, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for State.
2. The instant application has been preferred for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.563 of 2025 (State vs. Rajesh Chaturvedi), under sections 354C I.P.C. and section 67(D) of I.T. Act, arising out of Case Crime No.300 of 2023, P.S. Kotwali, District- Jhansi, pending before learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi, including the charge-sheet dated 13.01.2025 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated 05.04.2025.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant sought the attention of Court over the order through which cognizance of offence has been taken up by learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi on dated 05.04.2025, which impugned the instant application related to Case Crime No.300 of 2023 in pursuance to sections 354C, 500 I.P.C. and section 67(D) of I.T. Act, wherein cognizance of offence has been taken up only in respect of section 354C I.P.C. and 67D of I.T. Act.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that there is no section in shape of 67(D) of I.T. Act available in Information Technology Act, 2000 and as such order dated 05.04.2025 is highly illegal and the same is not sustainable in the eye of law due to non-availability of any specific section, wherein the cognizance of offence has been taken up against the applicant.
5. Per contra, Sri Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 although vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application, but did not dispute the legal aspect which has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant, i.e., non-availability of any specific section, i.e., 67D in the Information Technology Act, 2000.
6. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that there are ample litigations pending between the parties, wherein best effort has been made for arriving over some amicable settlement but all were in vain and in all the criminal matters applicant has been granted interim protection in his favour which is prescribed under para-8 of the affidavit filed in support of instant application and as such the interim protection be also provided to the applicant in the instant matter also as extended by co-ordinate Benches of this Court in other criminal matters pending against him.
7. Learned A.G.A. although vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the application, but no substantial argument has been raised while opposing the prayer as made by learned counsel for applicant due to want of any specific instructions.
8. After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties, one thing is crystal clear that there is hardly any section available in the Information Technology Act, 2000 as section 67D. So far as ingredients of section 354C I.P.C. are concerned, the same is subject matter of trial, but at this stage order dated 05.04.2025 is hereby set-aside and the matter is remitted back to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhansi for taking fresh cognizance of offence, if required, in pursuance to charge-sheet, but under the relevant sections which is applicable and available under the Act/Code.
9. The instant application stands allowed accordingly.
Order Date :- 26.5.2025 Saif