Delhi High Court: In a case wherein, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) to seek direction for quashing of FIR registered under Section 420 of the Penal Code, 1860, Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.* after considering the nature and modus operandi adopted by the petitioner towards the commission of a cyber fraud, and the possibility of more victims having fallen prey to such cyber fraud for which investigation was being carried out by the investigating agency, held that this Court did not deem it appropriate to quash the present FIR, as the investigation was not yet complete and chargesheet had not yet been prepared and filed.
Background
In the instant case, Respondent 2 filed a complaint and stated that on 30-3-2022, he was facing some problem with his Paytm account, so he dialled a Paytm Customer Care number obtained from Google. Thereafter, he received a call from another number, where the caller introduced himself as customer care executive. Respondent 2 further alleged that by keeping him involved in the conversation, the caller hacked his mobile and defrauded him of Rs. 50,000, which was deducted in three instalments. During the course of investigation, it was discovered that the deducted amount from Respondent 2’s bank account was credited in the petitioner’s account.
The petitioner stated that from the bare reading of FIR, no offence was disclosed against him and there was nothing to suggest that in the status report that there was any intention on the part of the petitioner to commit the alleged offence. The petitioner further contended that probably due to some technical glitch, the amount of Rs. 50,000 was credited in the petitioner’s bank account without his knowledge and thus, the petitioner immediately returned the amount to Respondent 2.
The petitioner further stated that vide compromise deed dated 30-01-2023, the matter had been settled between the parties and thus, Respondent 2 did not wish to pursue his complaint. Therefore, the registered FIR should be quashed.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that during investigation it was discovered that the petitioner had received about Rs. 28.17 crores in his bank account and it appeared that he might have duped several other victims by way of cyber-fraud.
The Court referred to Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008) 4 SCC 582 and Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641 and opined that “while quashing of criminal proceedings based on settlement, it was equally important to scrutinize the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and its wider implications”.
The Court opined that the present case extended beyond the realm of mere private dispute that arose out of any commercial transaction or simple misdemeanour. The Court opined that prima facie, the present case revealed commission of cybercrime/cyber fraud whereby the amount was surreptitiously debited from the bank account of Respondent 2 while he was having a conversation with an individual presenting himself as a customer care executive, who had called Respondent 2 from a mobile number.
The Court further opined that “in today’s digital era, cyber-crimes are proliferating at an alarming rate, leaving a trail of victims in their wake. Neither are cyber-criminals bound by restrictions of borders due to their global reach, nor do they discriminate among their victims, thereby targeting the elderly, the young, the businesses as well as the governments in the digital landscape.”
The Court observed that around Rs. 28.17 crores had been credited to the petitioner’s bank account and it was to be investigated that whether the amount had been obtained through illegal and fraudulent means and whether there were other victims of such cyber fraud. The Court opined that undermining the gravity of such allegations would jeopardize the financial security and trust of the individuals on financial payment platforms/gateways, but also potentially expose the broader public to similar threats.
The Court noted that the petitioner had himself not disputed the fact of having received such amount in his bank account and neither the allegations levelled in the FIR were absurd or improbable nor it could be held at this stage that no offence was disclosed against the petitioner from the perusal of FIR and the investigation conducted so far. The Court relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine 315 and after considering the nature of the offence, the modus operandi adopted by the petitioner towards the commission of a cyber fraud, and the possibility of more victims having fallen prey to such cyber fraud for which investigation was being carried out by the investigating agency, held that this Court did not deem it appropriate to quash the present FIR, as the investigation was not yet complete and chargesheet had not yet been prepared and filed.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the present petition.
[Achal Rana v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5804, decided on 13-9-2023]
*Judgment authored by – Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Malak Manish Bhatt and Ananya K., Advocates
For the Respondent: Amol Sinha, ASC for the State along with Kshitiz Garg, Ashvini Kumar and Chavi Lazarus, Advocates with SI Manzoor Alam, P.S. Cyber/SED; B.C. Mishra, Advocate
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
