The accused company had dishonestly induced the complainant to deliver property, constituting an offence under Section 420 IPC. The principles for quashing of FIR as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court were not met in this case.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') has been filed on behalf of petitioners seeking quashing of FIR bearing no. 49/2019, dated 01.04.2019, registered at Police Station Hauz Qazi, Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 420/406 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC') and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the present FIR was registered pursuant to an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. passed by the concerned Magistrate, and as per the version of complainant Md. Sajid, he had been deceived/allured by the accused company on pretext that if he would paid them Rs.57,500 as cost of a package, he would be given access to a web portal namely www.socialtade.biz and an opportunity to work from home to earn money by clicking 125 daily links on website or Facebook pages. It was assured to the complainant that on each click on the link, he would receive Rs.5/- after deducting TDS. On this belief and assurance given by the accused company, the complainant had deposited Rs.2,30,024/- through NEFT for purchase of four such memberships/packages from the company, in December, 2016. However, it was alleged that complainant had received a total of Rs.17,379/- from the use of the web portal till 24.01.2017, after which the web portal had become inactive.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the complainant has filed an affidavit stating that he seeks to withdraw his complaint and does not wish to pursue the matter further. It was further argued that petitioner no. 1 Anubhav Mittal has been in judicial custody since 12.02.2018, and petitioner no. 2 Ayushi Aggarwal has been in judicial custody since 12.02.2018, and till date no action has been taken by the Investigating officer even after lapse of four years from the date of registration of present FIR.

4. Learned ASC for the State, on the other hand, argued that petitioners are in judicial custody in Lucknow Jail and there are several other FIRs pending against them. It was also stated that an amount of Rs.450 crores was found in the bank account of the petitioner and they all were engaged in releasing ponzi schemes for inducing multiple victims and deceiving them of their money. Learned ASC further argued that the present case is not a fit case for quashing as the affidavit filed by the complainant itself reveals the modus operandi of the petitioners and the affidavit does not mention that matter has been settled between the parties or that he has received back his money.

5. This Court was also not inclined to allow the present petition, however, the learned counsel for petitioner thereafter insisted that the matter be heard on merits.

6. On merits, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioners had launched the web portal www.socialtade.biz as the directors of the company i.e. M/s Ablaze Info Solutions Private Limited, which was a social media exchange and web traffic exchange portal that allowed individuals or businesses to promote their web and social media pages, (referred to as Digital Marketing Campaign) by purchasing digital marketing packages from the portal. It was argued that an FIR bearing no. 93/2017 was registered on complaint of one Dinesh Singh at PS Surajpur, G.B. Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, after which, the UP Police had frozen the bank account of the company, and hence the company could not disburse the scheduled weekly payment of around Rs.240 crore. It was further argued that this news was circulated in the media claiming that the company had cheated its customers and misappropriated funds, and the complainant was thus influenced by this news, which led to the filing of the present complaint.

7. This Court has heard arguments addressed by both sides and perused the material on record.

8. As per the case of prosecution, the complainant in