Tarun Sadana & Ors. vs State & Ors.
2019 Latest Caselaw 5705 Del

$~78
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                   Date of decision: 18th November, 2019

+      CRL.M.C. 5833/2019 & CRL.M.A. 40458/2019

       TARUN SADANA & ORS.                                ..... Petitioners
                   Through              Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
                                        Atul Kumar, Mr. Abhinmanyu
                                        Shamra, Adv. with petitioner no.1 in
                                        person
                          versus

       STATE & ORS.                                        ..... Respondents
                          Through       Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for State
                                        Insp. Ahswani Kumar with SI Varun,
                                        EOW
                                        Mr. Rushab Aggarwal, Adv. for R-2
                                        with Mr. Rajesh H. Bansal, Vice
                                        president of R-2 company
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

                          J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

CRL.M.A. 40459/2019

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. This application is, accordingly, disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 5833/2019 & CRL.M.A. 40458/2019

3. Vide the present petition, the petitioners seek direction thereby to

quash FIR no. 0202 dated 15.10.2019 , registered at Police Station EOW,

New Delhi for the offences u/s 420 /120 B IPC and Sec 66 IT Act, 2000 and

all consequent proceedings emanating therefrom.

4. It is not in dispute that the investigation is ongoing and chargesheet is

yet to be filed and vide the present petition, the petitioners seek quashing of

FIR No.202 dated 15.10.2019 registered at Police Station EOW, for the

offences punishable under Section 420/120B IPC and Sec. 66 IT Act, 2000

and all consequent proceedings emanating therefrom.

5. It is not in dispute that in case of Gagan Harsh Sharma and Another

Vs. Stae of Maharasthra Though Sr. Police Inspector and Anr, in

criminal writ petition 4361/2018, High Court of Bombay vide order dated

26.10.2018 held that " the ingredients of an offences under which are

attracted by invoking and applying the section 420, 408, 379 of the Indian

Penal Code are covered by Section 66 of the Information Technology Act,

2000 and prosecuting the petitioner under both the Indian Penal Code and

Information Technology Act would be a brazen violation of protection

against double jeopardy."

6. Accordingly, the said Court set aside the FIR insofar as the

investigation into the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code.

7. The said judgment of Bombay High Court was challenged before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 10264-

10265/2018 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 07.12.2018. Thus,

according to the law of the land, regarding the protection against double

jeopardy, the accused cannot be prosecuted under Indian Penal Code and

Information Technology Act simultaneously.

8. Since the investigation is pending in the present case, I am not

inclined to pass any order. However, it is made clear that the investigating

agency is at liberty to investigate the matter under Section 66 of IT Act,

2000 and under the other provisions of the said Act. The offences punishable

under the Indian Penal Code are not maintainable.

9. It is made clear that if the investigating agency comes to the

conclusion that the offences under Section 66 of the IT Act are not made out

but offences under the Indian Penal Code are made out, then the

investigating agency is at liberty to take steps accordingly.

10. In view of above, the petition is disposed of.

11. Pending application also stands disposed of.

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE NOVEMBER 18, 2019 ms