Mandeep Singh v. State (UT, Chandigarh)

The Cyber Blog IndiaCase Summary

Mandeep Singh v. State (UT, Chandigarh)

Mandeep Singh v. State (UT, Chandigarh)
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
Crl. Misc. M-21747/2011
Before Justice Anita Chaudhry
Decided on July 22, 2015

Relevancy of the case: Quashing of FIR for an offence under Section 66A for reselling cricket match tickets

Statutes and Provisions Involved

  • The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66A)
  • The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 420)
  • The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 482)

Relevant Facts of the Case

  • The petitioner had purchased five tickets for the World Cup semi-final match at Mohali. An inspector browsing eBay found that the petitioner was reselling the tickets for chair block entrance Gate #2, PCA Mohali on a higher price citing the reason as being unable to go himself.
  • A DDR was entered and the Inspector instructed Ashok Kumar (SI) to give an online bid and leave his particulars on the bidding site. The sub inspector submitted a bid of ₹95,000/- and gave his mobile number.
  • The petitioner called back and despite the SI mentioning the price set by ICC to be ₹250/-, the petitioner insisted on selling the tickets at ₹1,25,000/-.
  • SI Ashok Kumar called the petitioner to a coffee shop and bargained on buying a single ticket for ₹24000/-. After the exchange, the SI signalled his colleagues deployed around and the petitioner was taken into custody.
  • The police investigated the matter and filed the challan under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
  • This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR registered under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

  • The petitiner’s counsel submitted that Section 66A was quashed by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India and there are no rules and regulations which prohibit the transfer of the ticket. Also, there was no cheating as the seller had informed the SI that he wanted to sell it at a higher price.
  • The respondent’s counsel submitted that the petitioner had committed an act of cheating as he represented that the tickets were for gate # 2 whereas the actual tickets were found to be of gate #5 (gate #2 is a VIP gate).

Final Decision

  • Petition allowed. FIR quashed.

This case summary has been prepared by Neelangini Tiwari, an undergraduate student at Kirori Mal College, DU, during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in January/February 2021.