Mutyala Saideswara Rao vs The Station House Officer on 9 July, 2025

Telangana High Court

Mutyala Saideswara Rao vs The Station House Officer on 9 July, 2025

Author: T.Vinod Kumar

Bench: T.Vinod Kumar

      THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K.SUJANA

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1556 OF 2024

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner, who

is accused No.3, to quash the proceedings in FIR No.39 of

2024 dated 10.01.2024, pending on the file of Panjagutta

Police Station registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 417, 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,

Sections 66-D and 66-C of the Information Technology Act,

2000, (for short ‘IT Act‘) Sections 4 and 20 of the Indian

Telegraph Act, 1885, (for short ‘the Act, 1885) and

Sections 3 and 6 of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act,

1933. (for short ‘the Act, 1933)

2. The facts of the complaint are that respondent No.2

gave a complaint to PS Panjagutta stating that when he

was googling for a Digital Service Payment Gateway on

03.12.2023, he received a call from ‘8529674886’ stating

that they were calling from IGS Solutions which was

similar to Meeseva, but allegedly related to Central

Government and provides 300 services. The complainant

further states that she paid Rs.1800/- for registration in

order to create ID on her name and accordingly she paid
2

the same through UPI and the company created DT897434

ID, but the company is alleged to have said that for

activation of KYC, the application was presently stalled

and further stated that the company further advised

respondent No.2 to take a distributor ID for which he

would get more commission and accordingly respondent

No.2 is alleged to have paid an additional amount of

Rs.4040/- through UPI but they stated that it is showing

KYC error. The company further advised respondent No.2

to opt for a Zonal ID for an amount of Rs.30,000/-.

Respondent No.2 grew some suspicion and did not pay the

said amount.

3. It is further alleged in the complaint that respondent

No.2 went to the office of IG Solutions on 9th Floor of White

House Building, Begumpet, Hyderabad where she was

informed by the HR executive that the company was only

providing 5 services and that refund of her money could

not be provided. On the complaint of respondent No.2, the

Police registered FIR No.39 of 2024 dated 10.01.2024.

4. The case of respondent No.2, as per the impugned

complaint, is that even after payment of amounts, the

company did not process her application and did not
3

provide her a timely refund and there is absolutely no

allegation with respect to identity theft of the company

impersonating any other entity to cheat respondent No.2.

5. Heard Sri S.Nagesh Reddy, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri

S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing

on behalf of respondent No.1.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the whole case is foisted only to harass the petitioner and

the complaint given by respondent No.2 is only to the

extent that her payment was not registered and there is a

pending dispute with regard to the resolution mechanism

in IGS Solutions and the petitioner claim is that without

participating in the resolution and without waiting made

huge galata and brought Police and filed false case.

Therefore, none of the averments made in the complaint

constitute any offence, much less the alleged offences. As

such, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings

against the petitioner.

7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner

stating that there are lot of victims in the hands of this

IGS Digital Solutions and it needs further interrogation
4

and also investigation. Hence, learned counsel prayed this

Court to dismiss the petition.

8. In the light of the submissions made by both the

learned counsel and a perusal of the material available on

record, it appears that the petitioner is the Director of IGS

Digital Center and I Globe Solutions. The main allegation

against the petitioner is that respondent No.2 received a

call from the said Company, wherein, it is stated that

company is similar to Meeseva Services and it is related to

Central Government and provides 300 services. Believing

the same, respondent No.2 paid an amount of Rs.1800/-

for registration. After payment, the application was stalled

for activation of KYC. Further, on advice of said company,

respondent No.2 paid an additional amount of Rs.4040/-

through UPI but still the application was pending due to

KYC error. The company further advised to opt for a zonal

ID for an amount of Rs.30,000/- however, on suspicion

respondent No.2 did not pay the said amount. Further, on

06.01.2024, she went to IGS Solution Office wherein the

HR of the said company informed that the company is

providing only 5 services and refund of money could not be

provided, as such, respondent No.2 lodged complaint

before the Police. Therefore, the Police registered the case
5

against the petitioner for the offences punishable under

Sections 417, 419, 420 of IPC & Sections 66-D, 66-C of the

IT Act, Sections 4 & 20 of the Act, 1885 and Sections 3 &

6 of the Act, 1933.

9. The first contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that Sections 66-D, 66-C of IT Act is not

applicable as there is no data theft even according to

averments in the complaint. On going through the said

contention and the averments in the complaint or remand

report do not constitute the offences for the said Sections,

there is no allegation of identity theft and cheating by

personation. As such, the averments in the complaint do

not constitute the offences under Sections 66-C and 66-D

of IT Act.

10. As seen from the record, the petitioner was also

charged for the offences punishable under Sections 4 and

20 of the Act, 1885 and Section Sections 3 and 6 of the

Act, 1993. A bare perusal of the said Sections would

reveal that they pertain to prohibition and possession of

wireless telegraphy apparatus without possessing the

license of the Central Government and the punishment

thereof. In the present case, there is no averment in the
6

complaint that the petitioner is running the Digital Service

Payment Gateway without any license, as such, the said

sections are not attracted.

11. However, it is pertinent to note that the Indian

Telecommunications Act, 2023 repealed existing legislative

framework of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and the

Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 vide gazette

notification dated 24.12.2023 owing to huge technical

advancements in the telecom sector and technologies.

12. The further contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that petitioner is providing employment and

income through their platform. The Police have wrongly

projected the case and there is no dishonest intention in

providing services. It also provides training and follow up

services to all its users in order to facilitate ease of usage

and customer satisfaction. Further, it is submitted that

there was difference in the PAN and Aadhar details more

particularly with respect to date of birth, as such, KYC

problem arose. Further, the petitioner informed that his

complaint is pending with dispute resolution mechanism,

without waiting for the same, respondent No.2 lodged a
7

complaint before the Police, as such, the averments do not

constitute the offence under Sections 417, 419 & 420 IPC.

13. Furthermore, the case of prosecution is that not only

respondent No.2, but there are number of victims in the

hands of petitioner and he is wrongly projecting that the

said Company is related to the Central Government

Schemes and the same is similar to the Meeseva services

of the State Government. Further the petitioner

threatened respondent No.2 to compromise the matter.

However, the case is still under investigation and the

allegations need to be investigated. As such, proceedings

against the petitioner for the offences cannot be quashed

under Sections 417, 419 & 420 of IPC.

14. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed-in-part

and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3

in FIR No.39 of 2024 of Panjagutta Police Station,

Hyderabad for the offences punishable under Sections

66-C and 66-D of IT Act, Sections 4 & 20 of the Act, 1885

and Sections 3 & 6 of the Act, 1933 are hereby quashed,

while permitting the investigating officer to proceed further

against the petitioner/accused No.3 for the offences

punishable under Sections 417, 419 and 420 of IPC.
8

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any

pending, shall stands closed.

____________________
JUSTICE K.SUJANA

Date:19.08.2024
HK