JUDGMENT : (Ravindra Maithani, J.) The challenge in this petition is made to the Charge Sheet No. 437 of 2020 in FIR No. 294 of 2020 dated 08.05.2020, under Sections 419, 420 IPC and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”), Police Station Kotwali Roorkee, District Haridwar; cognizance order dated 07.08.2021 passed in Criminal Case No. 1646 of 2021, State v. Garvit Danu @ Govind Singh, by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar (“the case”) as well as the entire proceedings of the case. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The case is based on an FIR lodged by the respondent no. 2, a police officer. According to it, on a social media platform, the petitioner has shown himself as working in Uttarakhand Police and also placed a photograph of police in his profile cover photo. Thereby, the petitioner has been impersonating and committing fraud and cheating with the public in general. The FIR further records that the petitioner had also posted misleading information on his social media account. Based on this FIR, investigation was conducted and after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner, which is the basis of the case, in which on 07.08.2021, cognizance has been taken. It is impugned herein. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even if the averments made in the FIR are taken at their face value and accepted in its entirety, it does not make out any prima facie case. He would submit that the averments as made and as allegedly established by the prosecution even do not prima facie make any kind of cheating, impersonation or any wrongful gain to the petitioner. He would submit that prima facie case under Sections 419, 420 IPC and Section 66-D of the IT Act is not made out. Therefore, it is argued that interference of this Court is warranted in this matter. 5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the petitioner in his social media platform had shown himself as working in Uttarakhand Police and thereby he impersonated and cheated and defrauded the public in general and has also uploaded misleading information. 6. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”). 5. Learned State Counsel would submit that the petitioner in his social media platform had shown himself as working in Uttarakhand Police and thereby he impersonated and cheated and defrauded the public in general and has also uploaded misleading information. 6. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”). The jurisdiction is much wide to give effect to any order under the Code to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But, it is much guided by the principles of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments. 7. In the case of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the scope of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code and in para 102 observed as hereunder:- “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 8. In the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code, this Court cannot go into the details of the fact and could not conduct a mini trial. But, definitely, if on the face of averments made by the prosecution, no prima facie case is made out, definitely an interference is warranted. 9. The cognizance in the instant matter has been taken under Sections 419, 420 IPC and Section 66-D of the IT Act. 10. Section 419 IPC provides for punishment for cheating by personation. It reads as hereunder:- “419. Punishment for cheating by personation. – Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” 11. 10. Section 419 IPC provides for punishment for cheating by personation. It reads as hereunder:- “419. Punishment for cheating by personation. – Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” 11. Section 420 IPC provides for punishment for cheating and dishonestly inducting delivering of property. It reads as hereunder :- “420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. – Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of the valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 12. “Cheating” as such has been defined under Section 415 IPC. It reads as follows:- “415. Cheating. – Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were no so deceived, and which act or omission causes or likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”. Explanation. – A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.” 13. Section 66-D of the IT Act provides for punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resource. It reads as follows:- “66-D. Punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resource. – Whoever, by means of any communication device or computer resource cheats by personation, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.” 14. A bare perusal of above provisions makes it clear that in order to attract any of the provisions, first and foremost, it has to be established that any cheating has been done. Has it been done by impersonation or by a computer device, etc., that could be examined once cheating is established. 15. A bare perusal of above provisions makes it clear that in order to attract any of the provisions, first and foremost, it has to be established that any cheating has been done. Has it been done by impersonation or by a computer device, etc., that could be examined once cheating is established. 15. In order to attract the provision of cheating, it has to be shown that by deceiving any person, fraudulent or dishonest inducement is made to the person so deceived so as to deliver any property, etc. In the instant case, the allegations against the petitioner are that he had shown himself as working in Uttarakhand Police and has also placed a photograph of police in his profile photo. It is not a case that the petitioner, in any manner, changed his identity. It may be said that the petitioner has wrongly introduced himself. But, who is cheated; who is deceived; who is induced to deliver any property to anyone? There is no material on these aspects. 16. It is further the case of the prosecution that the petitioner has uploaded misleading information on his social media account. What is misleading? Essentially, the charge sheet has been filed for committing offence of cheating by impersonation, etc. But, even if the prosecution case is taken at their face value and accepted in its entirety, it does not prima facie make out any offence as alleged. In view thereof, this Court is of a view that an interference is warranted in this case. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be allowed. 17. The petition is allowed. The Charge Sheet No. 437 of 2020, the cognizance order dated 07.08.2021 as well as the entire proceedings of the case are hereby quashed.