Abhijit Giri Police Complaint (1)

 REGD/AD

REF NO. LAC-01102022-15:30      DATE: 01.10.2022

TO, 

SHO, 

Cyber Police Station West,

110064

SUBJECT: COMPLAINT AGAINST THE CRIMINAL OFFENCE OF VIOLATION OF PRIVACY U/S 66E, PUNISHMENT FOR PUBLISHING OR TRANSMITTING OF MATERIAL CONTAINING SEXUALLY EXPLICIT ACT, ETC. IN ELECTRONIC FORM U/S 67A OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000 AND EXTORTION U/S 384 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1980, 

1. SUJAL PATEL 

7461869631 

Address: Unknown                    …Accused No.1

2. 9074093107   

Address: Unknown                    …Accused No.2  

3. 9263742688   

Address: Unknown                    …Accused No.3  

4. 9974064970  

Address: Unknown                  …Accused No.4 

                                   

Under the instructions and on behalf of my client Abhijit Giri, S/O Asit Giri, R/O Jaijagannath apartment, 2nd floor, 15 Nilganj Road, Sodepur Panihati (m) North 24 Parganas West Bengal – 700110 ALSO AT C-6A-20A, Janakpuri, Ground Floor, New Delhi, 110058 (Communication address), hereinafter, referred to as the Complainant, I do hereby serve upon this complaint against the above mentioned accused persons.

1. That, the Complainant who is a Manager at a Private Company is a law abiding citizen without any criminal antecedent and is currently residing at Jaijagannath apartment, 2nd floor, 15 Nilganj Road, Sodepur Panihati (m) North 24 Parganas West Bengal – 700110, ALSO AT C-6A-20A, Janakpuri, Ground Floor, New Delhi, 110058 (Communication address).

2. That, the Complainant would like to bring to your notice the criminal offence Violation of privacy under section 66E, Punishment for Publishing or Transmitting of Material Containing Sexually Explicit Act, etc. in electronic form under section 67A of Information Technology Act, 2000 and of extortion under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code, 1980.

3. That, on March 7, 2022, during the Complainant’s work trip to Bombay the Complainant through an online agent booked a Masseuse for which he was asked to give all the details of his Hotel room including a picture of the same. After sending the same and later availing the services the Complainant paid a sum of Rs. 5000.00 (Rupees Five Thousand) to the Masseuse. 

4. That, later after the Masseuse left, the Complainant received a call at 20:00 P.M., from a person claiming to be the husband of the Masseuse and threatening him to pay more money otherwise he would circulate nude pictures in compromising of the Complainant clicked by the Masseuse on the internet. That the offence of Violation of Privacy under Section 66E of the IT Act has been committed against the Complainant by the Accused.

5. That, the Complainant after the call was in a state of shock and fearful of his and his family’s reputation, he transferred Rs. 6,000.00 to the Blackmailer. And thus the offence of Extortion has been committed against the Complainant by the Accused. 

6. That, the Complainant had thought that he would not be getting any more calls but little did he know that he was caught in the web built by Scammers and that it was just the beginning. 

7. That, the next day the Complainant again got a call after which he transferred Rs.20, 000.00 (Rupees Twenty Thousand) again on the given number. 

8. That, the Complainant kept on getting calls of extortion wherein he was somehow edited into obscene and inappropriate pictures and was threatened that the pictures will be circulated and posted online if the Complainant did not deposit the requested amount of money. 

9. That, again in the month of April he starting getting calls and messages of a girl from unknown numbers demanding Rs. 40,000.00(Rupees Forty Thousand) from the Complainant threatening him to deposit the same or she will edit all pictures and make a video of same and circulate it online. 

10. That, the Complainant stopped taking calls and blocked many callers. He even surrendered one of his phone number. But again in September he started getting messages from a Sujal Patel, containing inappropriate pictures of himself and messages demanding money, after which the Complainant deposited Rs. 20,000.00 (Rupees Twenty Thousand) at one instance and Rs. 25,000.00 (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) at another instance. That at one time when the Complainant had no money he even transferred money Rs. 32, 000.00 (Rupees Thirty Two Thousand) through his friend’s account. That the offence of Publishing or Transmitting of Material Containing Sexually Explicit Act, etc. in electronic form under section 67 A of the Information technology Act, 2000, has been committed against the Complainant by the Accused. 

11. That, now when the Complainant has surrendered both his numbers, his friend who had once transferred money to the caller from his account has also started receiving calls. 

DATE	AMOUNT	TRANSFEREE
15.09.2022	Rs.20,000 through Phonepe/T2209151434490129159692	9074093107
16.9.2022	Rs. 20,000 through Phonepe/T2209161257266497929082	9074093107
16.9.2022	Rs.10,000 Phonepe/ T2209161303203248084656	9074093107
16.9.2022	Rs.2,000 Phonepe/T2209161312507105110054	9074093107
20.9.2022	Rs.15,000 Phonepe/T2209201052150700015853	9074093107
20.9.2022	Rs. 5,000 through Phone pe/T2209201102184554384455	9074093107
20.9.2022	Rs. 5,000 through Phonepe/T2209201139334534811754	9074093107

12. That, a complaint vide Acknowledgement Number-20809220062699, has already been made with the Cyber Cell dated 29/09/2022.

13. That, since the Complaint made to the Cyber Crime online portal has been forwarded to CYBER POLICE WEST on 29/09/2022. Also, since the Complainant also has an office at C-6A-20A, Janakpuri, Ground Floor, New Delhi, 110058 (Communication address), he frequently visits this office and has also received a lot of calls and messages from the Blackmailers at this office, making it a place where the Cause of Action for the aforementioned Criminal Offences arose, therefore, the case is well within the Jurisdiction of Cyber Police Station West.

14. That, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision in Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) (1999) 8 SCC 728 held that “Section 178 CrPC, inter alia, provides for a place of enquiry or trial when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed or where the offence was committed partly in one local area and partly in another and where it consisted of several acts done in different local areas, it could be enquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Hence, at the stage of investigation, it cannot be held that the police does not have territorial jurisdiction to investigate the crime.”

15. That, under these circumstances, I request you to file an FIR according to the directions given by the Apex court in the landmark judgement of Lalita Kumari v/s Govt. of U.P. where it was laid down that the registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and that the police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering FIR if cognizable offence is disclosed.

16. That, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs vide communication February 6, 2014, while placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumar v. State of UP, inter alia directed “when it becomes apparent that even if the offence has been committed outside the jurisdiction of the police station, Zero FIR would be registered and the FIR will then be transferred to the appropriate police station as per Section 170 of CrPC."

I, therefore serve upon you this complaint and request you to direct the SHO to register a complaint/FIR, under the above-mentioned sections and provisions of law against the above-mentioned Accused people and investigate the matter, collect the evidences and further provide me with the status report as soon as possible. 

   A copy is kept for record and for further Legal   Action.

                                                                        ANUPAM KUMAR MISHRA

                                                         ADVOCATE