Allahabad High Court
Achin Sharma And 2 Others vs State Of U P And 2 Others on 18 June, 2020
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 1 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5755 of 2020 Petitioner :- Achin Sharma And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shambhawi Shukla,Rajrshi Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Sri Rizwan Ahmad, Advocate holding brief of Shri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vikas Sahai, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 24.05.2020 registered as case crime no.225/2020 under Section 469, 54, 505(2) IPC and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2000 and Section 3(1)(dha) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
In the present matter, the FIR in question has been lodged by first informant Rajendra Singh Sonkar, Regional Office President (B.J.P.) (SC/ST Forum) Brij Kshetra against the petitioners with the allegation that petitioner no.1 with the intention to defame the sitting M.L.A. as well as to destroy the image of the Ruling Party has created a forged video clipping and the same was circulated from mobile number of petitioner no.1 and 2. Another video clip has also been prepared on the instigation of the petitioner no.1 with the purpose to tarnish the popularity of the sitting M.L.A. and the same has been circulated by respondent no.3.
Sri Rizwan Ahmad, Advocate submits that petitioner no.1 is sitting Pradhan of the village and the respondent no.3 has animosity with him because he has not fulfilled his illegal demands. The petitioners have opined the misuse of power by the respondent no.3 and based on false, frivolous and baseless allegations, the present FIR has been lodged, hence the same be quashed.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR which discloses the cognizable offence.
The Legislature has inserted Section 66-D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2000 with the view to provide an explicit deterrent against the growing occurrence of cheating by impersonating, also popularly referred to as 'phishing'. Phishing is today one of the most dangerous frauds. With the insertion of Section 66-D, phishing in addition to a civil contravention also becomes a penal offence.
The ingredients of Section 66-D are that (a) a person by means of a communication device or computer resource; (b) cheats another by personation. It is relevant to indicate that the Information Technology Act has not defined "personation", however it will originally apply to vast array of phishing attacks. The punishment prescribed for the offence of cheating another by personation is a term of imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and a fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.
After having examined the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR, we are of the opinion that the impugned FIR discloses cognizable offence against the petitioners, hence no interference is called for by this Court in its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the FIR or for grant of any interim relief to the petitioner.
The petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, petitioners will be liberty to move appropriate application for anticipatory bail before the competent court, if so desire.
Order Date :- 18.6.2020 A. Pandey (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) (Ramesh Sinha,J.)