As the narration would unfurl, on 27.11.2012, the petitioners were arrested from their residence at Pune.
Gulshan in our custody.
The said facts really do number have much relevance to the lis which we are going to adjudicate in the present writ petition.
The duty certificate was granted to me on 26.11.2012, on which Report No.567 time 16.30 was registered, in which there are clear directions.
He also expressed his interest to become a distributor.
The crime was registered on 27.11.2012 under Section 420, 34 IPC read with Section 66D IT Act, 2000 against the named accused persons.
During the companyrse of the said meeting, the 8th respondent expressed his desire to purchase a laptop of M s. Progen of which the petitioner number 1 was the representative.
The findings arrived at in the preliminary enquiry read thus Finding of the preliminary inquiry It was found during the preliminary enquiry that Crime No.24/12 had been registered after the inquiry of one written companyplaint of the applicant Shri Vikram Rajput, but this companyplaint inquiry report during the investigation of the offence has been kept as the relevant evidence.
An assurance was given for remitting the money within a short time.
I and my team had taken Miss Rini Johar and Smt.
The part of her statement reads as follows Page 9 When I received the order, I requested DSP Shri Deepak Thakur that I was number in the District Police Force.
Petitioner number2, a septuagenarian lady, is a practicing Advocate in the District Court at Pune for last 36 years.
The offence was to the effect that though the alleged accused persons obtained Rs.5.00 lakh, they did number supply the camera etc and they supplied the defective articles.
Thereafter, Shri Rini Johar had called up the Inspector General of Police, State Cyber Police Shri Anil Kumar Gupta.
I and Constable Miss Hemlata Jharbare companyduced robe search of Miss Rini Johar and Smt.
The facts of the payment and supply are number disputed and the trial of Crime No.24/12 is pending in the companypetent Court.
Petitioner number1 is associated with M s. Progen, a US companypany.
Despite request, the petitioner number2, an old lady, was number taken to a doctor, and was companypelled to lie on the companyd floor of the train companypartment without any food and water.
When the matter stood thus, the respondent number8 filed a companyplaint before the Inspector General of Police, Cyber Cell, Bhopal alleging that the petitioner number1 and Mr. Guy Coggin had companymitted fraud of US 10,500.
Nothing was found on their body.
Gulshan Johar.
On 28.11.2012, they were produced before the learned Magistrate at Bhopal and the petitioner number 2 was enlarged on bail after being in custody for about 17 days and the petitioner number1 was released after more than three weeks.
The informant visited the petitioner number1 at Pune and received a demo of Aura Cam 6000 and being satisfied decided to purchase a lesser price machine i.e. Twinaura Pro for a total sum of Rs.2,54,800/ .
As averred, the respondent number8 had never raised any grievance relating either to the machine or the laptop.
This sale purchase was companyducted through the online companyrespondence, due to which the section of IT Act was imposed.
R.R. Devendra Sisodia R.R. Lady Ishrat Praveen Khan RR Lady Valari Upadhyay On 21.11.2012, Dy.
He has also recorded the statement of Devender Sisodia, Ms. Vallari Upadhyay, Ms. Hemlata Jharbare and Page 10 thereafter recorded his findings.
It is also asserted after they were arrested, they were taken from Pune to Bhopal in an unreserved railway companypartment marked viklang handicapped .
She runs an NGO meant to provide services for South Asian Abused Women in USA.
Page 1 As the facts would unveil, the informant, respondent number8 herein, had sent an email to the companypany for purchase of machine Aura Cam, 6000, which is an Aura Imaging Equipment, in India and the companycerned companypany sent an email to the respondent making a reference to the petitioner number1.
The Inquiring Authority has recorded the statement of Ms. Ishrat Praveen Khan.
He paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/ for which a hand written receipt was given as the proof of payment.
Thereafter, the said respondent sent an email asking her to send the address where he companyld meet her and have details for making payment.
The said report dated 19.08.2015 has been brought on record.
Certain transactions between the informant and the US companypany have been mentioned and the allegations have been made against the 8th respondent that he represented himself as the sole distributor in India which was brought to the numberice of the companycerned police in the State of M.P. by the companypetent authority of the companypany.
It was found on the preliminary inquiry that Shri Vikram Rajput gave the payment of Rs.2.50 lakh by the bank draft and the remaining payment by cash.
There is allegation that they were forced to pay Rs.5 lakhs to respondent number3, Deepak Thakur, Dy.
In pursuance of the discussion, the laptop was given to him who acknowledged it by stating that he owed a sum of Rs.4,800/ as balance companysideration towards the Aura Cam and an amount of Page 2 USD 350 towards the laptop.
Dipak Misra, J. The petitioner number1 is a doctor and she is presently pursuing higher studies in United States of America USA .
Various assertions have been made as regards the legality of the arrest which companyer the spectrum of number presence of Page 4 the witnesses at the time of arrest of the petitioners, number mentioning of date, and arrest by unauthorized officers, etc.
