BIRENDRA KUMAR JHA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B.K. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami alongwith Mr. Bankim Sarma and Mr. Bhaskar Sarma, learned APP for the State respondent no.1 as well as Mr. N. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

(2.) By filing this criminal petition filed under sec. 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the proceedings of PRC No. 2574/2022, arising out of Noonmati PS Case No. 265/2022 under Sec. 419/471/193/506 IPC read with Sec. 66 and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act for short).

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner had extensively referred to the FIR dtd. 2/6/2022, lodged by the then Chief General Manager (HR) on behalf of Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Guwahati Refinery. By extensively referring to the provisions under which the case was registered, it was submitted that if at all the allegations were true, the petitioner had merely impersonated a fake identity, but the ingredients of cheating by personation (sec.419 IPC), using as genuine a forged document (sec. 471 IPC), giving or fabricating false evidence in a judicial proceeding (sec. 193 IPC), criminal intimidation (sec. 506 IPC), hacking with computer system (sec. 66 IT Act), and cheating by personation by using computer resource (sec. 66D IT Act) were not present in this case. It was also submitted that the computer related crime can only be investigated by a police of the rank of Inspector, but in this case, the FIR reveals that the investigation was carried out by a police officer of the rank of Sub-Inspector. Accordingly, it was submitted that this was a fit case for quashing the complaint.