Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32439 Court No. - 76 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20648 of 2024 Applicant :- Ankit Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rama Pati Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. 2. The instant application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 24.08.2021 and cognizance order dated 20.12.2021, in Case No. 44239 of 2021, titled State v. Ankit Kumar, arising out of Case Crime No.01 of 2020, under Sections 419, 420 IPC and Section 66D I.T. Act, P.S. Cyber Crime, District Varanasi. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the informant has lodged an FIR against an unknown person, alleging that on 24.09.2020, he received a message on his PhonePe account indicating that Rs. 498/- had been deducted from his account. Subsequently, he was instructed to download the Quick Support App. After downloading the app, an additional amount of Rs. 1,24,373/- was deducted from his account. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is not named in the FIR and his name was surfaced during the course of the investigation. Furthermore, the applicant has no concern with the PhonePe number 917571810437, which is associated with another person, namely Kapil Muni Singh. Additionally, during the investigation, the informant has acknowledged that the amount in question has been refunded to his account. 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the application, stating that there are clear allegations indicating that the message was sent from the applicant's PhonePe number, following which the amount was deducted from the informant's account. The ingredients of Sections 419, 420 of the IPC, as well as Section 66D of the Information Technology Act are attracted against the applicant. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State, and perusing the entire record, it is prima facie observed that a message was sent from the Phonepe number of applicant to the informant following which the amount was deducted from the informant's account. The ingredients of Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, are prima facie satisfied in the present case. 7. So far as the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant is concerned, it call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of the material on record, it can also not be held that the impugned criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Similarly, no such illegality, perversity or any other substantial error could be pointed out in the impugned summoning order so as to warrant any interference by this court in the exercise of powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. 8. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merit, and it is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 A. Tripathi Justice Vinod Diwakar Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad