(Prayers: This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.p.c., praying to quash the proceedings pending consideration before the 4th addl. cmm court, nrupatunga road, bangalore in c.c.no.14359/2024 (arising out of cr.no.219/2022) for the offences p/u/s 420, 120b, 406, 419, 465, 467, 468, 471, 34 of ipc of 1860 and sec. 66-d of i.t. act of 2000.
This criminal petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.p.c., praying to quash the proceedings pending consideration before the xlv additional c.m.m. court, nrupathunga road, Bengaluru in cr.no.219/2022 for the offence p/u/s.420, 120-b, 34 of ipc 1860 and sec.66-d of information technology act 2000 at annexure b.
This criminal petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.p.c., praying to quash the fir in cr.no.219/2022 of Chandra layout police station, Bengaluru which is being investigated by 2nd respondent for the offences p/u/s 420 and 120(b) r/w 34 of ipc and section 66-d of information technology act as per annexure-a and b which was pending on the file of i addl.c.m.m., bengaluru and now given transfer to xlv addl.c.m.m., Bengaluru as an abuse of process of law.
This criminal petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.p.c., praying to quash the entire proceedings in c.c.no.14359/2024 (cr.no.219/2022), pending on the file of the learned 4th ACMM Bengaluru, for the offence p/u/s 120-b, 406, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w sec.34 of IPC and sec.66-d of information technology act, 2000 registered by the 1st respondent Chandra layout police station vide annexure a.)
Cav Order:
1. Two of these petitions call in question proceedings in C.C.No.14359 of 2024 and the other two call in question crime in Crime No.219 of 2022. These petitions are preferred by different accused challenging initiation of criminal case/crime registered for offences punishable 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 120B, 420 and 34 of the IPC and Section 66D of the Act in Crl.P.Nos.7416 of 2023 and 9272 of 2023.
2. Criminal Petition No.5539 of 2024 is preferred by accused No.4; Criminal Petition No.7032 of 2024 is preferred by accused No.2; Criminal petition No.7416 of 2023 is preferred by accused No.5; and Criminal Petition No.9272 of 2023 is preferred by accused No.3 all in Crime No.219 of 2022. In two criminal petitions charge sheets are filed and in other two criminal petitions charge sheets are yet to be filed owing to the fact that an interim order of stay was operating. Since the issue arises out of a solitary transaction, they are taken up together and considered by this common order.
3. Facts adumbrated in Criminal Petition No.5539 of 2024, which are almost common in other cases, are as follows:
3.1. The 2nd respondent is the complainant. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant generates interest in establishing a sugar factory and was looking to raise loans for the said purpose. In the month of October, 2017 the complainant is said to have visited Celestial Tiles showroom at Indiranagar, Bengaluru owned by Vinay Agarwal. Vinay Agarwal is said to have arranged a meeting with Niyaz at Shangri La Hotel at Vasanthnagar, Bengaluru. Niyaz and Vinay Agarwal are said to have assured the complainant that they would arrange for a loan of Rs.225/- crores. Niyaz and Vinay Agarwal are said to have asked the complainant to come to Chennai and meet State Bank of India officials at Park Hyat Hotel in Chennai. Niyaz and his wife Silmia introduced the complainant to one Sebaratnam Jeevan and Krishnamurthy Balaji. All of them are said to have lured the complainant that they would get Rs.225/- crores from State Bank of India, Corporate Finance Branch and demanded a commission of 7% of the loan amount for getting the loan. The complainant is said to have agreed. Documents were transmitted to those accused. In furtherance of the said transaction one e-mail is communicated to the complainant and Rs.49/- lakhs is said to have been credited in the account of the complainant that was opened in State Bank of India on 04-01-2018. Another e-mail transaction alert came from the website of sbicf.co.in informing that Rs.115/- crores have been credited into the account of the complainant and again Rs.110/- crores was shown to have been credited to the account of the complainant. The total available balance showed Rs.225,49,00,000/-.
3.2. On the said balance being shown in the account of the complainant, the complainant pays Rs.7.15 crores which is 50% of the commission amount. The complainant then goes and checks the account in the State Bank of India physically. On coming to know that the complainant had been duped out of a conspiracy, registers a complaint on 16-07-2022. The complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.219 of 2022. Two of the accused approached this Court in two petitions, where a coordinate Bench had granted an interim order of stay in favour of one of the accused and following that another Court grants an interim order of stay. In two of the cases, by the time they could approach this Court, the Police after investigation filed charge sheet in C.C.No.14359 of 2024. Therefore, all these cases are heard with the consent of parties finally.
4. Heard Sri Prateek Chandramouli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5539 of 2024; Smt. Sona Rajkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.7416 of 2023; Sri Hashmath Pasha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.9272 of 2023; and Smt. Lakshmy Iyengar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.7032 of 2024; Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri D.S. Sudhanva, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/3 in all the cases.
5. The learned senior counsel Sri Hashmath Pasha appearing in Criminal Petition No.9272 of 2023 and learned senior counsel Smt. Lakshmy Iyengar appearing in Criminal Petition No.7032 of 2024 along with other counsel would vehemently contend that the issue is purely civil in nature. The crime is registered for recovery of money of Rs.7.15 crores. Therefore, it is a case where criminal law is set into motion for the purpose of recovery of money. Plethora of judgments of the Apex Court hold that it is impermissible in law. All the learned counsel, would in unison, project that the transaction is said to have been done on 12-02-2018 and the complaint is registered only on 16-07-2022. Therefore, there is delay of 4 years in registering the crime. The learned counsel would submit that each of the petitioners have no role to play in the transaction and would allege that the offences are said to have taken place in Chennai and the crime is registered in Bengaluru. On all the aforesaid scores the learned counsel would seek quashment of proceedings, contending that a pure business transaction has become the subject matter of crime, and if this is permitted, it would become an abuse of the process of law.
6. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri B.N. Jagadeesha takes this Court through the charge sheet so filed against two accused and the charge sheet material that was available against the other two. According to the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, the charge sheet materials or the charge sheets would clearly indicate that these accused have created a fake SBI website, generated one time password to the mobile of the complainant to make him believe that his account has been credited with Rs.227/- crores, the loan that he needed to establish a sugar factory. Believing the accused, the complainant transferred Rs.7.15 crores to the account of the accused, which is the only transfer in the case at hand. Creation of fake website and transfer of money is a product of luring the complainant by the accused. It is the case of the State that in such cases if this Court would interfere, it would become a travesty of justice. He would seek dismissal of these petitions.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/ complainant would toe the lines of the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor in contending that the complainant has lost Rs.7.15 crores. The demand was Rs.15/- crores, 50% of which was paid and that is the only real transaction in the case at hand and everything else is fake. He would also seek dismissal of these petitions, contending that it is for the petitioners to come out clean in a full- blown trial.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The way the accused met the complainant and took the complainant all over is a matter of record. The entire issue gets triggered from registration of the complaint. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. The complaint dated 16-07-2022 reads as follows:
“From,
Vinayak Kabadi,
S/o. Ramakrishnasa,
Kashinath Krupa, Kabadi Road, Betageri, Gadag,
Karnataka – 582 102,
Ph. No. 9901772344.
Age:41, Hindu. S.S.K
To,
The Station House Officer,
Chandra Layout Police Station,
Bengaluru.
Respected Sir,
Subject: Complaint against Muzib Abdul Mian @ Niyaz, Silmia, Vinay Agarwal, Krishnamurthy Sha Balaji, Sebaratnam Jeevan and others for having cheated me by taking 7.15 crores Rupees for getting Rs.225 crores loan, defaulting, and not refunding.
With reference to above I am a resident of Betageri and I am a businessman. I, and my brother, are individually and jointly running various businesses such as Daya Wines, Welcome Enterprises, Narayansa and co. etc. I have a friend by name Gururaj Annigeri through whom Vinay Agarwal, who runs a luxury tile shop in Indiranagar Extension of Bengaluru, came in contact with me.
Since I was interested in establishing a Sugar Factory, I, was looking for raising loans for the purpose. One day in the month of October 2017 I had visited the "Celestial" Tiles showroom, 100ft. road, Indiranagar of Vinay Agarwal. Vinay Agarwal who had already come to know about my intention to raise funds, offered to introduce some persons who would get loans on Commission basis.
During the same month, Vinay Agarwal, arranged a meeting with Niyaz at Shangri La Hotel at Vasant Nagar, Bengaluru wherein Niyaz and Vinay Agarwal offered to get Rs 225 Crores loan. In the month of October 2017, Niyaz and Vinay Agarwal asked me to come to Chennai to meet State Bank of India Officials and I went to Park Hyat Hotel in Chennai where Niyaz and his wife Silmia introduced me to Sebaratnam Jeevan and Krishnamurthy Balaji. All of them promised, to get loan of Rs 225 crores from State Bank Of India, Corporate Finance Branch. They demanded me to pay 7% commission on the loan amount for getting the loan to which I agreed. They asked me to get all the documents. Thereafter, they took my signature on an agreement prepared in the name of M/s Rolta India Ltd assuring to get the loan from SBI. They asked me to open an online account in SBI Corporate Finance. After a lot of paper work and after taking my signature on a number of papers they carried out a bogus KYC. Thereafter, I was allotted Account No.60971523983 which was communicated through email.
On 03/01/2018, I received an email alert from www.sbicf.co.in informing that Rs. 49,00,000/- has been credited into my account in SBI. On 04/01/2018 I- received another email transaction alert from the same website of sbicf.co.in informing that Rs 1,15,00,00,000/- credited to my account to my account from the account of Rolta, India Ltd. Yet again the same day in the afternoon another Rs 1,10,00,00,000/- was shown as credited in to my account and the total available balance was shown as Rs.2,25,49,00,000/-. By posing as honest and capable and respectable people in society they demanded me to pay the commission. Accordingly, we have paid them a total sum of Rs 7.15 crores towards 50% of the commission, on various dates. Out of the Total amount paid the amount of Rs. 95 Lakhs have been through Bank Accounts of Well Come Enterprises, Daya Wines and M/s K. Narayanasa & Co. on 12/02/2018. The cash amount has been paid to the Muzib Abdul Mian @ Niyaz, Silmia, Vinay Agarwal, Krishnamurthy Sha Balaji, Sebaratnam Jeevan and others at Bengaluru near KFC, Chandra Layout.
As per the website www.sbicf.co.inmoney was shown as transferred to my account I was unable to withdraw the same because the website was not active. when I vehemently demanded they sent whatsapp message offering to refund the commission. They also told me that there was some technical problem with SBI and called me to Chennai. Further assured that, the technical problems would be resolved and soon I would able to withdraw the credited money. In spite of the patient waiting, I could not get the money which purported to have been credited to my said Account. Then suspecting the bonafide of these persons I started vehemently demanding to enable me to withdraw the money or return the Commission money received, then they said that there is some problem with SBI and hence they would get the loan from ICICI bank instead of SBI. On 23/03/2018, the above persons called me to Chennai and sent me a whatsapp message of a DD for a sum of Rs 49,00,00,000/- drawn on ICICI bank, in favor of my company but they did not hand over the same. Later, Vinay Agarwal sent message saying "Niyaz Bhai Gaya”.
Since then, all of the above persons have become incommunicado. Then I became suspicious and on verification I found that the above persons have no connection with Rolta India Ltd or SBI. They never intended to get me the loan. They have created bogus agreements in the name of the famous Rolta India Ltd. To make me believe that they are genuine persons and to deceive me to pay money to them, they have created fake website in the name of SBI CF with the help of hacker Sebaratnam Jeevan. Made me open a non-existent account, and just to convince me that they are genuine they created fake mails showing that money has been transferred to my account. Later on, they have shown me a forged copy of the DD of ICICI bank for a sum of Rs. 49,00,00,000/- (Rs Forty Nine Crores only) in favour of my company.
By these affairs it is clear that, Muzib Abdul Mian @ Niyaz, Silmia, Vinay Agarwal, Krishnamurthy Sha Balaji, Sebaratnam Jeevan and others had the intention to cheat me since beginning and put me under great unlaw full loss: Thus, all of them have conspired and cheated me of Rs. 7.15 crores. When I was in Chandra Layout bus depo in Bengaluru, I telephoned Silmia to find out the whereabouts of Niyaz. She abused me and told me that since I am vehemently pursuing the matter they have decided to eliminate me.
Up to, 23/03/2020, when I was called to Chennai, I did not realize I was being cheated. Only after that I became suspicious. It took me a lot of time to find out that the agreement, website, DD's etc are all bogus. The Covid-19 onset created further complications. Hence, I was not able to lodge the complainant earlier.
I request you to take action against the above persons and get back my money. I request also to, protect me from them since they have threatened to finish me off.
Bengaluru
Date:16/07/2022 Thanking you Sd/-”
(Emphasis added)
The complaint itself is a document of striking detail. It narrates, step by step, how a fictious banking edifice was erected to lull the complainant into a false sense of security; how a counterfeit digital infrastructure masquerading, as the State Bank of India was employed; and how the complainant was induced to part with enormous sums of money. The accused have created a website www.sbicf.co.in which was never in existence and generated one time password (OTP) to the mobile of the complainant or even whatsapp messages. At one point in time, the complainant is said to have got a message from SBI that a sum of Rs.225/- crores totally is credited to the account of the complainant. Sebaratnam Jeevan, accused No.5 and petitioner in Criminal Petition No.7416 of 2023 is said to be the brain behind hacking in the episode. He has created fake mails showing that money has been transferred into the account of the complainant. The facts obtaining in the case at hand clearly indicate a large scale cyber fraud.
10. It is the case of the complainant that upto 2020 he was called to Chennai for discussions about the remaining Rs.8/- crores commission that had to be paid and it is when the accused stopped picking up calls of the complainant, he gets suspicion and digs out the entire issue. The complainant has explained that after March 2020 Covid-19 had engulfed the nation and no complaint could be registered immediately and, therefore, registers the crime on 16-07-2022 when nothing came about. The Police conduct investigation and file a detailed charge sheet against the accused. The summary of the charge sheet runs into 10 pages. It reads as follows:
IMAGE
IMAGE
IMAGE
IMAGE
IMAGE
IMAGE
IMAGE
IMAGE
IMAGE
The investigation has revealed not an isolated lapse, but a concerted conspiracy allegedly replicated across States involving the victim. The role attributed to each of the accused is neither vague nor incidental. The summary of the charge sheet painstakingly delineates the part played by each accused – from introduction and inducement to technological execution, to siphoning off and laudering of funds.
11. The learned senior counsel Sri Hashmath Pasha appearing for the accused No.3 contends that he has no role to play in the entire transaction. He has only introduced the complainant to others. There cannot be anything farther from truth. The role of accused No.3/Vinay Kumar Agarwal and the transactions made by him into the account are clearly brought out in the summary of the charge sheet. The learned senior counsel Smt. Lakshmy Iyengar appearing for accused No.2 who is the wife of accused No.1 seeks to contend that just because she is the wife of accused No.1, to arm twist accused No.1 the crime is registered. This again is contrary to record. What accused No.2, the wife of accused No.1 has done is also clearly brought out in the summary of the charge sheet, though the charge sheet is yet to be filed against them in the light of the interim order. Further, permission to file additional charge sheet is sought by the Investigating Officer, which is said to be pending to be filed, awaiting the decision at the hands of this Court in the subject petitions.
12. In the present case, the allegations transcend the realm of mere breach of promise or failure of a commercial venture. They strike at the heart of public trust in banking systems and digital infrastructure. Creation of fake websites, impersonation of bank officials, fabrication of electronic communications are and can never be matters that can be brushed aside, as civil disputes or the transactions being purely civil in nature.
13. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that a civil case cannot be given a colour of crime and would seek to place reliance upon certain judgments that hold that a transaction that is purely civil in nature cannot be permitted to be tried before criminal Courts. While there can be no qualm about the principles laid down by the Apex Court in those cases, it would always depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. The Apex Court has time and again held that, even if the issue is purely civil in nature, it would not preclude registration of crime and continuance of criminal trial even if a civil suit is pending. In the case at hand, there is no suit instituted for the purpose of recovery of money. What is projected is a structured cybercrime. In such circumstances, reference being made to few judgments of the Apex Court would become apposite.
14.1. The Apex Court in ROCKY v. STATE OF TELANGANA (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2713) has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
24. The appellant's core contention, that the dispute is purely civil in nature, is untenable at this stage. Although courts must guard against giving criminal colour to civil disputes, it is equally well settled that the existence of civil remedies does not preclude criminal prosecution where the allegations disclose the essential ingredients of an offence. Civil and criminal proceedings may validly coexist if the factual matrix supports both.”
14.2. The Apex Court in ANURAG BHATNAGAR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1514) has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
45. The allegations in the application moved under Section 156(3) CrPC and the material in support thereof reveals that SHL is contending breach of the conditions of MoU dated 11.03.1995 and that it has been induced and deceived by VLS for entering into the aforesaid MoU. VLS has cheated SHL and its officers by making a false promise which was legally impossible to be carried out. The allegations of breach of conditions of the MoU or of making a false promise by itself may not give rise to any criminal action as no criminality is attached to it. However, there are elements of inducement, criminal conspiracy and cheating which are also borne out from the allegations made in the application and the complaint, which if proved, may amount to commission of an offence. Therefore, once such allegations are made out, it is difficult for the court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to interfere with the FIR, only for the reason that some of the disputes are of civil nature which may or may not be having any criminality attached to it.
46. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court, especially in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal Singh, that the discretion to quash an FIR at a nascent stage has to be exercised with great caution and circumspection. In this connection, it would be beneficial to refer to an old case of Privy Council in King Emperor v. Nazir Ahmad Khwaja wherein the law was well settled that the courts would not thwart any investigation or that the courts should be very slow in interfering with the process of investigation. It is only in rare cases where no cognizable offence is disclosed in the FIR that the court may stop the investigation so as to avoid the harassment of the alleged accused. Even in such exercise of power, the court cannot embark upon an inquiry as to the genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint which have to be examined only after the evidence is collected.
47. The breach of conditions of the MoU or allegations of false promises in relation to the aforesaid MoU are undisputedly subject matter of the different FIRs lodged by VLS itself. Therefore, violation of those conditions for some reasons have been considered by VLS to be offensive. Therefore, the High Court rightly held that if breach of those conditions of the MoU itself has been considered to be of criminal nature by VLS, it cannot be permitted to turn around and allege that such breach of conditions would be of pure civil nature.
48. Thus, in the above facts and circumstances, we do not consider to go into detail as to the exact nature of disputes involved in the FIR and leave the same to be adjudicated upon by the appropriate court where the chargesheets have been submitted.”
14.3. In KATHYAYINI v. SIDHARTH P.S. REDDY (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1428) , the Apex Court has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
19. We now come to the issue of bar against prosecution during the pendency of a civil suit. We hereby hold that no such bar exists against prosecution if the offences punishable under criminal law are made out against the parties to the civil suit. Learned senior counsel Dr.MenakaGuruswamy has rightly placed the relevant judicial precedents to support the above submission. In the case of K. Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S.3, this Court has reviewed its precedents which clarify the position. The relevant paragraph from the above judgment is extracted below:
“8. It is thus well settled that in certain cases the very same set of facts may give rise to remedies in civil as well as in criminal proceedings and even if a civil remedy is availed by a party, he is not precluded from setting in motion the proceedings in criminal law.”
20. In Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar4, this Court summed up the distinction between the two remedies as under:
“21. … There are a large number of cases where criminal law and civil law can run side by side. The two remedies are not mutually exclusive but clearly coextensive and essentially differ in their content and consequence. The object of the criminal law is to punish an offender who commits an offence against a person, property or the State for which the accused, on proof of the offence, is deprived of his liberty and in some cases even his life. This does not, however, affect the civil remedies at all for suing the wrongdoer in cases like arson, accidents, etc. It is an anathema to suppose that when a civil remedy is available, a criminal prosecution is completely barred. The two types of actions are quite different in content, scope and import. It is not at all intelligible to us to take the stand that if the husband dishonestly misappropriates the stridhan property of his wife, though kept in his custody, that would bar prosecution under Section 406 IPC or render the ingredients of Section 405 IPC nugatory or abortive. To say that because the stridhan of a married woman is kept in the custody of her husband, no action against him can be taken as no offence is committed is to override and distort the real intent of the law.”
21. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B.,
“17. In view of the preponderance of authorities to the contrary, we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings initiated by the appellant against the respondents. We are also not impressed by the argument that as the civil suit was pending in the High Court, the Magistrate was not justified to proceed with the criminal case either in law or on the basis of propriety. Criminal cases have to be proceeded with in accordance with the procedure as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the pendency of a civil action in a different court even though higher in status and authority, cannot be made a basis for quashing of the proceedings.”
22. After surveying the abovementioned cases, this Court in K. Jagadish (supra) set aside the holding of High Court to quash the criminal proceedings and held that criminal proceedings shall continue to its logical end.
23. The above precedents set by this Court make it crystal clear that pendency of civil proceedings on the same subject matter, involving the same parties is no justification to quash the criminal proceedings if a prima facie case exists against the accused persons. In present case certainly such prima facie case exists against the respondents. Considering the long chain of events from creation of family tree excluding the daughters of K.G. Yellappa Reddy, partition deed among only the sons and grandsons of K.G. Yellappa Reddy, distribution of compensation award among the respondents is sufficient to conclude that there was active effort by respondents to reap off the benefits from the land in question. Further, the alleged threat to appellant and her sisters on revelation of the above chain of events further affirms the motive of respondents. All the above factors suggest that a criminal trial is necessary to ensure justice to the appellant.”
14.4. In PUNIT BERIWALA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI, (2025 SCC OnLine SC 983) the Apex Court holds as follows:
“MERE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL PROCEEDINGS CANNOT ACT AS A BAR TO INVESTIGATION OF COGNIZABLE OFFENCES
28. It is trite law that mere institution of civil proceedings is not a ground for quashing the FIR or to hold that the dispute is merely a civil dispute. This Court in various judgments, has held that simply because there is a remedy provided for breach of contract, that does not by itself clothe the Court to conclude that civil remedy is the only remedy, and the initiation of criminal proceedings, in any manner, will be an abuse of the process of the court. This Court is of the view that because the offence was committed during a commercial transaction, it would not be sufficient to hold that the complaint did not warrant a further investigation and if necessary, a trial. [See: Syed Aksari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. State (Delhi Admin.), (2009) 5 SCC 528, Lee Kun Hee v. State of UP, (2012) 3 SCC 132 and Trisuns Chemicals v. Rajesh Aggarwal, (1999) 8 SCC 686]”
(Emphasis supplied at each instance)
The Apex Court in ROCKY’s case supra holds that existence of civil remedy does not preclude criminal prosecution, where allegations disclose essential ingredients of an offence. The case was concerning the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 344 and 506 of the IPC. The Apex Court only quashed the offence under Section 406, but sustained the other offences and permitted trial after looking into the fact that the issue is purely civil in nature.
In ANURAG BHATNAGAR’s case supra the Apex Court refused to quash the proceedings, since memorandum of understanding contained elements of inducement and criminal breach of trust made out in the allegations noticed in the complaint. The Apex Court holds that, that may itself constitute an offence.
In KATHYAYINI’s case supra civil suits were pending on the same issue involving the same parties. The Apex Court holds that mere pendency of suit between the same parties does not justify quashing of criminal proceedings, if prima facie case exists against the accused. Pendency of civil suit will not create a bar against prosecution, if the offences punishable under the criminal law are made out against the accused, notwithstanding the fact that they are same parties in the civil suit.
In PUNIT BERIWALA’s case supra, the Apex Court holds, mere institution of civil proceedings cannot act as a bar against investigation of cognizable offence. The Apex Court has thus consistently held that the existence of a civil remedy does not eclipse criminal prosecution, where the allegations disclose the ingredients of an offence.
15. One common thread that runs through the afore-quoted judgments of the Apex Court is that, the given set of facts disclose both civil wrong and criminal culpability. Merely because, in the first blush case projects a civil wrong, the criminal case cannot be quashed, notwithstanding the fact that identical relief is sought in the civil suit and the civil suit is between the same parties. It would all depend on the facts obtaining in each case.
16. The case at hand is akin to a crime thriller or a crime pot boiler. The accused/perpetrators of cybercrime have created a fake website of State Bank of India and have managed to hack the website of State Bank of India to generate OTP to make the complainant believe that he has, in fact, received the amount to his account; again, hacked the website of State Bank of India to show the balance in the account of the complainant as Rs.225/- crores and secured the commission from the hands of the complainant at Rs.7.15 crores. The complainant has lost Rs.7.15 crores in the aforesaid cybercrime episode. He has neither got Rs.225/- crores nor has set up a sugar factory. It is a clear case where all the accused have come together to hatch a conspiracy to cheat the complainant. Therefore, the offences that are alleged being the ones punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 419 and 420 of the IPC are clearly met, as the complainant is lured into parting an amount of Rs.7.15 crores without a rupee coming into his account and the intention of the accused from the inception is to cheat the complainant.
17. What would remain is offences under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, all of which deal with offence of forgery which is undoubtedly met in the case at hand. If the facts obtaining in the case at hand and the allegations do not constitute cheating, I fail to understand as to what else can it be. If in these cases indulgence is shown under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., it would amount to putting a premium on the cyber hacking by the accused. The accused are a cartel who have succeeded in cheating the complainant to the tune of Rs.7.15 crores. Therefore, it is for the accused to come out clean in a full-blown trial. At this juncture, this Court is not called upon to weigh evidence or pronounce upon guilt, the only question is, whether materials disclose prima facie case, warranting continuation of proceedings. On a careful consideration as noticed hereinabove, the answer is unmistakably in the affirmative. To quash the proceedings at this stage would be to smother a serious prosecution in its infancy and to grant immunity, where proceedings cry out for a full blown trial. This Court thus, finds these petitions meritless.
18. In the result, these petitions are rejected. Interim order if any operating shall stand dissolved.
Consequently, pending applications if any, also stand disposed.
