Advanced Search Results

Dileep Kumar K.S vs State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Anx.A1 FIR in Crime No.701/2018 of Palghat Town Police Station, for offences punishable under Secs.43, 66C& 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, on the basis of the FIS given by the 2nd respondent defact complainant on 29.5.2018. The petitioner accused … elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub- section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.(2) The period of limitation shall be-(a) six months, if

Manoj Jose vs Anil Kumar

Court : Kerala

those under Section 66D and 67 of the Information Technology Act.6. Initially the Offence under Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 could be dealt with, Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 reads as follows;“Punishment for cheating by

Sri. K. Balajee @ Balaji Sha vs State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

under Sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 34 of the IPC and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘the Act’ for short) in Crl.P.Nos.5539 of 2024 and 7032 of 2024 and for offences punishable under Sections

Mr. Sourish Bose Vs. State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Service Tax

petitioners would vehemently contend that the crime is erroneously registered. These are online transactions. Therefore, Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘the Act’ for short) is what had to be laid against these petitioners and not Section 420 of

Mrs. Lalitha Ramkumar vs State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

offences punishable under Sections 406, 408 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.2. Crime No.329/2019 came to be registered byRespondent No.1 pursuant to a complaint lodged by Mr. Manu Rishi Gupta

Leena Paulose vs State Nct of Delhi

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

BAIL APPLN. 1802/2024 Page 1 of 42 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 [“IT Act”]. At the time of filing of the chargesheet, Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Control

Muhammed Sanooj P T vs State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

No.552/2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 318(4) and 319(2) of the BNS 2023 and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 ('the IT Act' for short).2. The brief facts leading to this petition are that onthe basis of the

Dr. Rini Johar and Anr. Vs. State of M.P. andors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Right to Information

made, FIR No.24/2012 under Section 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) was registered against the petitioners by Cyber Police Headquarters, Bhopal, M.P. The respondent no.2, … kept as the relevant evidence. 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. The offence was to the effect that though the alleged

Rajadhurai Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police

Court : Chennai

26.10.2022 for offences under Sections 354A, 354D of the Indian Penal Code; Sections 66D, 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, on the file of

Phonepe Private Limited vs State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Phonepe app. The petitioner further avers in the petition that it is only an intermediary as defined under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’ for short) and facilitates services as a system provider and petitioner and only provides a platform … in Crime No.193 of 2022 for offences punishable under Sections 66C and 66D of the IT Act and Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC. … the petitioner says that it is governed by. A consequent declaration is also sought that the notice under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., dated 07-12-2022 to be bad in law.2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts germane