Gaurav Poddar vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The applicant, Gaurav Poddar, sought to quash an order dated June 15, 2024, by the Sessions Judge, Agra, which dismissed his criminal revision. This revision was against an order dated August 2, 2023, by the ACJM, Court No. 4, Agra, rejecting his discharge application in Case No. 14939 of 2022. The underlying FIR, registered in 2021, stemmed from a complaint alleging that the complainant's GST-registered firm, M/s. Sanjay Bardana Traders, suffered a forgery of Rs. 8,50,00,000/- by hacking its portal. The applicant contended that the orders rejecting his discharge were illegal and arbitrary, as no allegations were made out against him, and there was no evidence of tampering with computers or portals. The State opposed the application, arguing no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

Held

The Court held that the questions raised by the applicant involved disputed questions of fact, which could only be adjudicated upon by the trial court after a thorough appreciation of evidence. The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not intended to substitute the trial process or to appreciate evidence at this preliminary stage. The Court reiterated the settled proposition that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and with caution to prevent abuse of court process or to secure the ends of justice. It found no sufficient grounds made out by the applicant to quash the criminal proceedings at the pre-trial stage. Prima facie, it was established that the applicant committed forgery of Rs. 8,50,00,000/- by hacking the complainant's mobile number and portal. Consequently, the Court found no illegality in the impugned order dated August 2, 2023, and dismissed the application, granting the applicant liberty to raise his grievances at the time of framing of charge. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders dated August 2, 2023, and June 15, 2024, rejecting the applicant's discharge application and criminal revision, respectively, are illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law, warranting quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicant argued that the trial court committed a grave error by rejecting his discharge application without properly considering the material on record. He asserted that no allegations as alleged in the FIR were made out against him, and there was no evidence to satisfy the ingredients of Section 66 and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, or Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code. He relied on the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice. Revenue's Arguments: The State, through the learned A.G.A., opposed the application, submitting that there was no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated August 2, 2023, and therefore, no grounds existed for quashing it.