Uttarakhand High Court
Shatrughan Pandey vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 2 March, 2022
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No.1359 of 2021
Shatrughan Pandey ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ....Respondents
Present:
Mr. Deep Chandra Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State.
Mr. Xitiz Kaushik, Advocate for respondent no.3.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)
Challenge in this writ petition is made to the charge-sheet dated 02.09.2020, summoning order dated 05.03.2020 passed in Criminal Case No.367 of 2020, State vs. Shatrughan Pandey and others (for short, "the case"). under Sections 420 and 509 IPC and Sections 66B and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 ("the Act")
2. Facts briefly stated are as follows:-
Respondent no.3 is the informant in this case filed an FIR in this case under Sections 506 and 509 IPC against the co-accused. According to it, as a repayment to the sale consideration already received, a Gaurav Gupta had given six cheques of Rs.30 Lakhs to the informant. The cheques when presented, were not honoured. The informant filed cases against Gaurav Gupta. Subsequently, Gaurav 2 Gupta and Saurav Gupta threatened the informant to withdraw the case; they also published a recorded call of the informant and her friend Sandeep Kukshal. Due to it, the reputation of the informant lowered in the society. This FIR was investigated. It was revealed that the petitioner befriended the informant; shared their mobile numbers. The petitioner under a design, extracted the call recorded in the mobile of the informant, between the informant and Sandeep Kukshal. Subsequently, the petitioner transferred the audio recording to Saurav Gupta, who published it on various social media platforms. The petitioner had also taken certain photographs of the informant when their relations were normal and published those photographs on the social media. He also made obscene comments on them. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet under Section 420 and 509 IPC and Section 66B and 67 of the Act against the petitioner. On 05.03.2020, the cognizance has been taken and the petitioner has been summoned. It is impugned herein.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3
4. In the instant case, neither State nor the respondent no.3 filed any counter affidavit despite various opportunities having availed for that purpose.
5. The Court requested Senior Superintendent of Police, Nainital, to submit case dairy of the case in a sealed cover with one page synopsis. It is available before this Court. The synopsis has helped this Court to appreciate this controversy.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would restrict his argument that even if the prosecution case is accepted in its entirety no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out.
7. Mainly there are two allegations against the petitioner, they are:-
(i) That the petitioner dishonestly accessed the mobile phone of the informant and had extracted the audio recording of the conversation between the informant and Sandeep Kukshal. Subsequently, the petitioner transferred this audio recording to Sandeep Kukshal and;
(ii) The petitioner uploaded certain photographs of the informant on various social media 4 platforms and made obscene comments on them.
8. The Investigating Officer, had obtained Forensic Science Laboratory report and examined various witnesses.
9. Since, challenge is made to the applicability of Section 420 IPC only, therefore, the Court restricts the discussion to that extent.
10. The allegation as levelled against the petitioner even if accepted in its entirety, in fact, does not even, prima facie, disclose any offence under Section 420 IPC. It is not the case against the petitioner that he dishonestly induced someone to deliver the property. Therefore, prima facie, offence under Section 420 IPC is not made out. But, the case as made out against the petitioner, prima facie, discloses offence under Sections 66B and 67 of the Act as well as Section 509 IPC. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be disposed of.
11. Prima facie offence under Section 420 IPC is not made out against the petitioner. But, prima facie, offence under Section 66B & 67 of the Act and Section 509 IPC is made out against the petitioner. The trial shall proceed 5 against the petitioner under Section 66B and 67 of the Act and Section 509 IPC.
12. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 02.03.2022 Jitendra