The Karnataka High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings against four persons accused of duping a businessman of over ₹200 crore by allegedly creating a fake State Bank of India website and using sophisticated digital fraud tactics that the court described as “akin to a crime thriller.” The Bench was hearing petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging a First Information Report registered for offences including cheating by personation, cheating, forgery, criminal conspiracy, common intention and offences under the Information Technology Act. The complainant, a businessman seeking to establish a sugar factory, was introduced by one of the accused to individuals who assured him of arranging a loan of ₹225 crore from the Corporate Finance branch of the bank, in return for a commission of seven per cent. The prosecution alleged that the accused created a fraudulent digital infrastructure, including a fake banking website and fabricated electronic communications, which led the complainant to believe that large sums had been credited to his account. Based on these representations, the complainant paid ₹7.15 crore to the accused as part of the purported commission, only to discover later at a physical visit to the bank that no such loan or credit had ever occurred.
In its order, the High Court observed that the complaint itself narrates in thorough detail how a fictitious banking edifice was erected to lull the complainant into a false sense of security, including the creation of a fake website and the generation of one-time passwords and email alerts purporting to be from the bank. The court noted that at one point the fraudulent digital records showed a total balance of ₹225 crore in the complainant’s account, reinforcing the illusion of legitimacy. The court said that the facts alleged indicate a large-scale cyber fraud, and that the accused had allegedly managed to hack the bank’s actual infrastructure to generate one-time passwords and fabricate account balances, thereby inducing the complainant to part with substantial funds. The complainant lost ₹7.15 crore in the episode and did not receive any of the loan amounts he had been promised. The court held that this was not a mere civil dispute or breach of promise, but a clear case where the accused conspired to cheat and defraud the complainant through elaborate deception.
The High Court further observed that the allegations, if taken at face value, disclose prima facie offences under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act, including cheating, forgery, and conspiracy. The court rejected arguments that the dispute was essentially civil in nature or that there were jurisdictional issues, noting that the nature of the alleged conduct struck at public trust in banking systems and digital infrastructure. It said that the creation of fake websites, impersonation of bank officials and fabrication of electronic communications cannot be brushed aside as civil matters when they involve serious criminality. Addressing submissions on delay in filing the complaint, the court acknowledged the complainant’s explanation that he came to suspect fraud only later and that intervening circumstances such as the pandemic contributed to the timing of the FIR, a matter it said could not be conclusively assessed at the quashing stage.
The High Court emphasised that the charge-sheet material revealed a concerted conspiracy involving the introduction of the complainant to the accused, the technological execution of the fraud, and the siphoning and laundering of funds. It noted that the role attributed to each accused was neither vague nor incidental, and that the allegations went beyond ordinary commercial disputes. In light of these conclusions, the court held that the materials before it disclosed cognisable offences that warranted full investigation and trial, and that the exercise of inherent powers to quash the proceedings was not justified. The bench stated that if indulgence were shown by quashing the FIR at this stage, it would amount to putting a premium on cyber hacking and sophisticated fraud. The High Court accordingly dismissed the petitions, holding that it was for the accused to “come out clean” in the course of a full-blown trial and that the prima facie case should proceed in accordance with law.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.