Top News

New Delhi: Cyber frauds are now on the rise and the offence cannot be taken lightly considering its gravity and implications, the Supreme Court said on Friday, July 24, while refusing to quash or club some FIRs lodged in different states.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih dismissed a plea filed by a petitioner seeking quashing of four FIRs pertaining to cyber fraud incidents registered in three different states.

The bench noted that though the petitioner was not named as an accused in these FIRs, the bank account belonging to his proprietary concern finds a mention.

It also dismissed the petitioner’s alternative prayer to club the FIRs lodged in Maharashtra, Karnataka and Odisha in 2024 under various provisions of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The bench said the mere fact that a part of the defrauded amounts was alleged to have been transferred in the bank account of the petitioner’s proprietary concern does not by itself establish that all the incidents form part of the same transaction.

“We are also mindful of the fact that the investigation is still in its nascent stage. Cyber frauds of the present nature are often executed through complex technological means involving multiple bank accounts, fictitious identities and digital networks operating across different jurisdictions,” it said.

The top court said investigation into such offences necessarily requires detailed forensic examination of electronic evidence, analysis of banking transactions and tracing of money trails so as to identify the people involved.

It said since the investigating agencies were yet to ascertain the complete flow of funds and unravel the entire chain of events, a direction for a composite probe may impede a fair and effective investigation.

“Several cyber frauds are now on the rise and the offence, considering its gravity and implications, cannot be taken lightly,” the bench said.

“More so, when the victims of crime, largely hailing from the rural areas, unaware and ignorant of the process and the mechanism adopted by the criminals, are allured to overcome their poverty,” it said.

The petitioner told the bench that he had no role in the commission of the alleged offences and he had permitted one of his friends to use the bank account on a commission basis to run an online gaming business.

He argued that upon becoming aware of the misuse of the bank account, he had lodged a cybercrime complaint in May 2024 against some persons, alleging that they had fraudulently used the bank account of his proprietary concern for unlawful money transfers.

Dealing with the prayer for quashing of FIRs, the bench said it would be appropriate for him to pursue the remedies available before the high court.

It also dealt with his alternative prayer for clubbing and consolidation of the FIRs, and for a direction that one composite investigation be carried out by a single probe agency.

Referring to some previous verdicts of the apex court, the bench noted that registration of multiple FIRs was impermissible if they relate to same incident or form part of the same transaction.

“However, where the subsequent FIR relates to a distinct offence/ incident or a separate transaction, its registration cannot be faulted,” it said.

The bench said though the alleged modus operandi appeared to be similar in these cases, the victims, the amounts involved, the transactions complained of and consequences suffered were distinct.

The petitioner urged the bench that owing to his serious cardiac ailments and diabetic condition, it would be difficult for him to face proceedings in different states.

“While we are not oblivious to this fact, however, such difficulty cannot be a ground to direct clubbing of FIRs which otherwise disclose commission of distinct offences,” the bench said.

It said clubbing of the FIRs may cause hardship to the complainants as they would be forced to run from pillar to post to pursue their criminal complaints.

While dismissing the plea, the bench said the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum to seek relief as may be entitled to in law.