Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

d. Which File Transfer Protocol (FTP) were used for uploading of said Form-32 and transmission of Form 32 to ROC server. e. To trace out the accused persons responsible for illegal filing of the said form no. 32 using a particular Internet Protocol (IP) address assigned to every internet user and computer system used for uploading the same to Ministry of Corporate Affairs since IP address is assigned to every computer participating on the internet to uploading a particular file/data and information. It is possible to trace these address backward to expose the individual behind the Computer to fulfill their illegal objective and gain wrongfully and cause wrongful loss to the complainant.

Put up on 23.12.2014 at 10:00 AM for pre summoning evidence."

30.The main argument of ld. counsel for the respondents is that the impugned order is an interlocutory order, is not sustainable precisely for the reasons that the process with regard to the application filed u/s156 (3)Cr.PC is complete, therefore to my view it is not an interlocutory order but it is intermediate order. As regards, the observations of ld. MM that the application filed u/s 156(3)Cr.PC does not disclose any cognizable offence and coupled with the facts that the evidence is within the reach of the complainant and the same can be produced during the course of pre-summoning evidence, is also not sustainable precisely for the reasons that it has been observed in the judgment 'Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP & Ors' that the FIR is a pertinent document in the criminal law procedure of our country and its main object from the point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law in motion and from the point of view of the investigating authorities is to obtain information about the alleged criminal activity so as to be able to take suitable steps to trace and to bring to book the guilty. It has also been observed that investigation of offences and prosecution of offenders are the duties of the State. For "cognizable offences", a duty has been cast upon the police to register FIR and to conduct investigation except as otherwise permitted specifically under Section 157 of the Code. If a discretion, option or latitude is allowed to the police in the matter of registration of FIRs, it can have serious consequences on the public order situation and can also adversely affect the rights of the victims including violating their fundamental right to equality. The determination of the fact is exclusive domain of the original court of jurisdiction yet this court has limited jurisdiction to enter the area of discretion of Ld. M.M. on the ground of propriety and correctness. It is evident from the record that the digital signature of the revisionist allegedly have been used to file the form no. 32 using a particular Internet Protocol (IP) address assigned to every internet user and computer system used for uploading the same to Ministry of Corporate Affairs since IP address is assigned to every computer participating on the internet to uploading a particular file/data and information. It is possible to trace these address backward to expose the individual behind the Computer to fulfill their illegal objective and gain wrongfully and cause wrongful loss to the complainant. Therefore, taking note of this fact and having gone through the judgment Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP & Ors. discussed [supra], and in the pursuits and objects of justice and to meet the legitimate expectations, the impugned order dated 13.10.2014 is set aside with the direction to pass afresh order taking into consideration the citation Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP & Ors. IX (2013) SLT 1. Accordingly, revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. Trial Court record, if any be sent back with a copy of the order. Revision petition/ proceedings be consigned to record room.