HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33310 of 2025 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Sri Shesh Narain Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant and learned AGA for State. 2. Present application has been preferred with prayer seeking quashing of entire proceedings of Case no. 208142 of 2022 (State vs. Rajat Kumar Mishra @ R.K.Mishra) arising out of Case Crime no. 58 of 2021 under sections 417, 420 IPC and sections 66, 66C of I.T. Act, PS- Cyber Crime, District Varanasi along with charge sheet dated 19.09.2022 and cognizance/summoning order dated 14.10.2022. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant, raised his arguments over the veracity of the charge sheet and whereupon the cognizance of offence has been taken up in pursuance to sections 66, 66C I.T. Act along with Section 417 of IPC and the applicant has been summoned. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that implication of the applicant as per the narration of the FIR along with detailed conduction of the inquiry does not disclose any use of the computer which attracts Section 66 I.T. Act which specifically deals with the computer related offences, moreover, it is also apparent from the narration of the FIR that is it the mobile number belongs to the applicant which has been fraudulently used under some impersonation, so far as Section 66(C) of I.T. Act is concerned, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Harish Kumar Tripathi, Shesh Narain Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rajat Kumar Mi8shra Alias Rk Mishra .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) the same deals with punishment for identity theft wherein the electronic device was put under use for dishonestly identification feature of any other person but at the same time, learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that reading of Section 66C will be in consonance with Section 66 of I.T. Act and which is not the separate section and as such once, there is hardly any use of the computer, both these sections will not be applicable for proceeding trial against the applicant. 4. Per contra,learned AGA opposed the prayer as made in the application on the basis of the narration of the FIR as well as the evidences collected during course of investigation which culminated into preferring charge sheet and cognizance of offence. Learned AGA supported the order passed by learned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi on dated 14.10.2022 and also informed that the matter is pending at the stage of framing of charges. 5. After hearing rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties, one thing is crystal clear that implication of the applicant in pursuance to sections 66 and 66C of I.T. Act is uncalled for on the basis of the investigation culminated into preferring charge sheet, so far as the narration available in the FIR itself is concerned that also does not disclose any use of any computer generated offence carried out by the applicant. 6. It is the trite law, which has been enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the cognizance of offence cannot be taken up in a piecemeal but the remedies available before the applicant is to pursue his case before learned court concerned by way of seeking discharge specifically in two sections i.e. 66 along with 66C of I.T. Act and if the same shall be preferred, it goes without saying that the same shall be considered by learned court concerned within the shortest stipulated period before framing of charges. 7. On the basis of the above observations, instant application is NA528 No. 33310 of 2025 2 hereby disposed of. So far as challenging the entire proceedings is concerned, there is hardly any ground raised by learned counsel for the applicant which is convincing for quashing entire proceeding. September 11, 2025 Shaswat NA528 No. 33310 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad