Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Justice Lok Pal Singh of the Uttaranchal HC addressed a petition seeking to quash criminal proceeding under the provisions of Section 420, 468, 471 of the Penal Code and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act regarding a matter pending in Judicial Magistrate Court.
In the present matter, a complaint was lodged against the applicant that he had had used fraud documents as genuine to cause the Trust harm and had hacked the information in the computer. A charge sheet was filed and the applicant had been summoned for trial by the Magistrate for the aforementioned offences. The counsel for the applicant stated that the applicant himself was as the President of Kailshanand Mission Trust and was the victim of a revengeful activity executed by the other trustee members. The applicant stated that that the complainant had concealed the fact that the applicant was the President and reported him down as a hacker. In short, the counsel argued that the entire proceeding was a waste of the time of Court. The counsel for the complainant argued that due to the nefarious activities of the applicant, Swami Kailashanand had cancelled all his rights and removed him.
The applicant relied on the Supreme Court case in, International Advanced Research Centre for Powder Metallurgy and New Materials (ARCI) v Nimra Cerglass Technics (P) Ltd., (2016) 1 SCC 348, arguing that in order to bring a case for offence of cheating, it is not merely sufficient to prove that a false representation was made, but it is further necessary to prove that the representation was false to the knowledge of accused.
Supreme Court in case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, stated that “…Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not.”
The Hc thus said that in the present matter it would not stifle the judicial proceeding or to quash the chargesheet. Since no prima facie charge was made, the fact that the Magistrate took cognizance and called the applicant to face the charges was well within the ambit of the law.
86540
103860
630
114
59824