TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.List of Abbreviations
2.Index of Authorities
3. Statement of Jurisdiction
4. Statement of Facts
5. Issues Raised
6. Summary of Arguments
7. Arguments Advanced
8. Prayer

Issues
1.Whether Mr. Vikram Soni can be charged under Section 420 (Cheating)
and Section 66C (Identity Theft) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)?

2.Whether Mr. Sharma can be held partially responsible for the fraud due
to his failure to exercise caution and verify the source of the email?

3.Can the bank be held liable for failing to prevent this phishing fraud
under Section 72A (Punishment for disclosure of information in breach of
lawful contract) of the IPC, or is this an issue of user negligence?

4.What role, if any, does the concept of "mens rea" (criminal intent) play
in determining the guilt of Mr. Soni?
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation Full Form

IPC | Indian Penal Code, 1860 |

IT Act | Information Technology Act, 2000 |
SC | Supreme Court |
UOI | Union of India |
NIA | National Investigation Agency |
CrPC | Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 |
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. STATUTES

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 420, 415, 72A.

2. Information Technology Act, 2000: Sections 66C, 43, 66D.
3. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Section 357A.

B. CASE LAWS

1. Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2017) 2 SCC 18.

2. Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 168.
3. State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub (1980) 3 SCC 57.
4. Niamat Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2017) 11 SCC 432.
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble High court of madras, Madurai Bench has jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under section 482 of code of
criminal procedure to entertain this appeal against the judgment of the High
Court

Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.
- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent
powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give
effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of
any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

Article 226 in Constitution of India

226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs
(1)Notwithstanding anything in article 32 every High Court shall have powers,
throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to
any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within
those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of
habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrantor and certiorari, or any of
them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any
other purpose.[(1-A) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions,
orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised
by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within
which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such
power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the
residence of such person is not within those territories."; was inserted after 15th
Amendment][Editorial comment-The Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act,
1963, this was amended to include clause (1A). It states that the High Court,
whose territorial jurisdiction the cause of action originates under, may also
have the ability to issue directives, orders, or writs to any government,
authority, or person, even if their seat or place of abode is beyond the high
court’s territorial jurisdiction.](2)The power conferred by clause (1) to issue
directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be
exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories
within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of
such power, notwithstanding that the scat of such Government or authority or
the residence of such person is not within those territories.(3)Where any party
against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any
other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under
clause (1), without--(a)furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all
documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and(b)giving such party
an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the
vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in
whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High
Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the
date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such
application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed
on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on
which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the
interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the
expiry of the said next day, stand vacated.(4)The power conferred on a High
Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the
Supreme Court by clause (2) of article 32.
 STATEMENT OF OBJECT

1.It is submitted that the applicant Mr. Rajiv Sharma, a well-known

businessman, received an email that appeared to be from his bank, requesting
him to verify his account details due to a security update.

2.It is submitted that by trusting the authenticity of the email, applicant

entered his bank account details into the provided link.

3.It is submitted that in the following day, applicant noticed that a large
sum of money had been transferred from his account to an unknown account.

4.It is submitted that, the applicant had lodged a complaint to the cyber
crime police and upon investigation, it was found that the email was a phishing
attempt, and the fraudulent transfer was made by a hacker, Respondent/accused
Vikram Soni, using the stolen credentials.

5.It is submitted that the accused and the cybercriminal, Mr. Vikram
Soni, was later apprehended by the police. The cybercrime division traced the
transaction to Mr. Vikram Soni, the accused, a hacker specializing in phishing.
He was arrested under Sections 420 IPC and 66C IT Act.

6.It is submitted that, However, Applicant bank claims that the

transaction was authorized under the terms of service, as he willingly entered
his details and did not use the bank’s official website or call the bank’s
customer service to verify the authenticity of the request.

7.It is submitted that the Bank denied liability, citing Clause 12(b) of its
Terms of Service, which states: Customers must verify communications via
official channels. The Bank is not liable for losses due to user negligence.
8.It is submitted that this application is filed under section 482 read with
article 226 for direction of investigation in the matter and for writ of mandamus.
 ISSUES RAISED NO.1

1. Whether Mr. Vikram Soni can be charged under Section 420

(Cheating) and Section 66C (Identity Theft) of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC)?

ISSUES RAISED NO.2

2. Whether Mr. Sharma can be held partially responsible for the

fraud due to his failure to exercise caution and verify the source of the
email?

ISSUES RAISED NO.3

3.Can the bank be held liable for failing to prevent this phishing
fraud under Section 72A (Punishment for disclosure of information in
breach of lawful contract) of the IPC, or is this an issue of user
negligence?
ISSUES RAISED NO.4

4. Whether mens rea is established in Mr. Soni’s actions to

sustain criminal charges ?
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ISSUES RAISED NO.1

1. Whether Mr. Vikram Soni can be charged under Section

420 (Cheating) and Section 66C (Identity Theft) of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC)?

There is no evidence to prove that Respondent No.1 had committed

the crime
Section 66C IT Act: The unauthorized use of Sharma’s
credentials falls under "identity theft" as defined in Sharat Babu
Digumarti (2017) is absent.

ISSUES RAISED NO.2

2. Whether Mr. Sharma can be held partially responsible for

the fraud due to his failure to exercise caution and verify the
source of the email?
It is submitted that Mr. Sharma had a duty to exercise reasonable
caution (e.g., as an employee handling sensitive data or financial
transactions), his failure to verify the email could
constitute contributory negligence.
 ISSUES RAISED NO.3

3.Can the bank be held liable for failing to prevent this

phishing fraud under Section 72A (Punishment for disclosure of
information in breach of lawful contract) of the IPC, or is this an
issue of user negligence?

It is submitted that Mr. Sharma had a duty to exercise

reasonable caution (e.g., as an employee handling sensitive data or
financial transactions), his failure to verify the email could
constitute contributory negligence. A prudent individual, especially
one handling sensitive transactions, must verify unsolicited emails
requesting financial actions. Mr. Sharma’s blind reliance on the
email falls below the standard of care expected.Therefore the bank
cannot be held responsible.

ISSUES RAISED NO.4

4. Whether mens rea is established in Mr. Soni’s actions to

sustain criminal charges ?

There is no motive and preparation, Mens Rea is absent.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADVANCEMENT OF ARGUMENTS

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ISSUES RAISED NO.1

1.Whether Mr. Vikram Soni can be charged under Section 420

(Cheating) and Section 66C (Identity Theft) of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC)?

1.It is submitted that Phishing constitutes cheating under

Hridaya Ranjan Verma (2000), as Soni induced Sharma to part with
credentials through deception. The transfer of funds is a direct
consequence.
2.Section 420 (Cheating): Requires:
Section 420 of the IPC deals with the crime of cheating. It
requires that a person:
o Deliberately deceives another person, whether by false
representation, or fraud, or by concealing a fact, or by any
other act.
o Intends to cause, or knows is likely to cause, damage or
loss to the person deceived.
o The deception must be with the intention to deceive or for
the purpose of causing wrongful gain to oneself or
wrongful loss to another.The above said factors are absent
2. Section 66C of the Information Technology Act, 2000, deals
with the offense of "identity theft," also known as the use of
another person's identity. This typically occurs when a person
 uses someone else's name, details, or credentials to gain an
improper advantage, or to perpetrate a crime or fraud.
3. It is submitted that there is no prima facie case against the
respondent no.1 for any implication. There is no material
evidence prove the case.

ISSUES RAISED NO.2

4. Whether Mr. Sharma can be held partially responsible for

the fraud due to his failure to exercise caution and verify the
source of the email?
1.It is submitted that there is no Breach of Duty of Care
(Negligence Standard) in the part of the bank, The petitioner Failure
to Recognize Obvious Red Flags like Suspicious Indicators:
Misspellings, unfamiliar sender addresses, urgency tactics, the
negligence is in the part of the petitioner.
2. It is submitted that bank had done all possible steps to protect
the customer, it the petitioner who without any cautious, this cyber
fraud happens.
3.It is submitted that the bank is not liable for any action. The
sharma the petitioner is held liable for the cause and effect.

ISSUES RAISED NO.3

3.Can the bank be held liable for failing to prevent this

phishing fraud under Section 72A (Punishment for disclosure of
information in breach of lawful contract) of the IPC, or is this an
issue of user negligence?
1.It is submitted that in a phishing fraud case, a bank's liability
under Section 72A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (which pertains to
disclosure of information in breach of a lawful contract) depends on
the nature of the contract and the bank's negligence. If the bank
breached a lawful contract by disclosing personal information that led
to the fraud, it could be liable, but in our case the bank not disclosed
any information to the fraudster.
2.It is submitted that in the above matter the Data Leak was
happened not by the bank, there is no evidence for the same.
3.It is submitted that there is no proof for Security Protocol
Failures in the bank side, the violation of Rule 2FA is absent Bank:
Presumptive negligence (RBI Circular
DBS.CO.ITC.BC.No.2/31.02.008/2010-11) as alleged in the writ
petition filed by the petitioner is not proved.
4.It is submitted that OTP was shared by the petitioner, Creates
irrebuttable presumption of user negligence (RBI 2019 Guidelines)
provided with Only Exception: If bank employee induced sharing
(Mumbai EOW v. Axis Bank 2022), the Clicking of Phishing Links
was done by the petitioner.
ISSUES RAISED NO.4

5. Whether mens rea is established in Mr. Soni’s actions to

sustain criminal charges ?

It is submitted that the investigation revails there is no clear

participation of the appellant therefore there is no prima facie case
Soni’s deliberate creation of a phishing site and use of stolen credentials
demonstrate intent to defraud, therefore there is motive and preparation, Mens
Rea is present.
 PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and

authorities cited, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to :
1.Dissmiss this writ petition with cost and thus render justice.
2.. Award costs and any further relief deemed just.

AND PASS ANY SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION THAT

THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS
AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY
AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.
BEFORE THE HON’BLE High COURT OF MADRAS MADURAI BENCH
( Under Article 226 of Indian Constitution)

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Writ petition (MD) (CRIMINAL ) NO. _____ OF 2025

BETWEEN

Mr. Rajiv Sharma

... Appellant/Petitioner

**VERSUS**

1. Mr. Vikram Soni

2. National Bank of India
3. State of Tamil nadu
Rep by Cyber cell Inspector

.. Respondents

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT