The judgment established the need to thoroughly investigate cyber-crimes, especially those involving financial and economic well-being, and emphasized the gravity of such offences.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. The petitioner, by way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.'), seeks issuance of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for, inter alia, quashing of FIR bearing no. 101/2022, registered at Police Station Cyber Police Station South East, Delhi under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC').

2. Brief facts of the case are that the present FIR was registered on 29.08.2022 on the basis of complaint lodged by respondent no. 2, who had stated that on 30.03.2022, when he was sitting in his chamber in Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, he had obtained the number of Paytm customer care i.e. ******5448 from Google and had dialed on the same since he was facing some problem with his Paytm account. However, the call had got disconnected immediately. It was further stated by the complainant that after about one minute, he had received a call from another number i.e. ******9448 and the caller had introduced himself as customer care executive. It was alleged that by involving him into conversation, the caller had hacked the complainant's mobile and had defrauded him of Rs.50,000/- which had got deducted from his savings bank account in three installments, two of Rs.20,000/- and one of Rs.10,000/-. During the course of investigation, it was discovered that the amount so deducted from the bank account of the complainant had got credited to the bank account maintained by the present petitioner.

3. Praying for quashing of present FIR, learned counsel for the petitioner states that no offence is disclosed against the petitioner from bare reading of the FIR as none of the mobile numbers mentioned in the FIR belong to the petitioner. It is further stated that there is nothing to suggest in the Status Report that there was any intention on the part of the petitioner to commit the alleged offence in question and no role has been attributed to him by the prosecution. It is argued that the amount of Rs.50,000/- had somehow got credited in the bank account of the petitioner without his knowledge, probably due to some technical glitch as the petitioner is also a service provider and has an account on Paytm. It is stated that petitioner had immediately returned the amount of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent no. 2. It is also stated by learned counsel for petitioner that the matter has been settled between the parties vide compromise deed dated 30.01.2023 and the respondent no. 2 does not wish to pursue his complaint. Therefore, it is prayed that FIR be quashed.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent no. 2, on merits, states that the matter was not settled in a way as suggested by the learned counsel for petitioner and the petitioner had not returned the amount immediately, rather, it was only after registration of present FIR on 29.08.2022 that the amount was returned to the complainant on 13.10.2022. However, it is stated that since matter has been compromised between the parties, the complainant/respondent no. 2 has no objection if the present FIR is quashed.

5. Learned ASC for the State, on the other hand, vehemently opposes the present petition and argues that though the complainant who is present in Court has no objection to quashing of the FIR, this is a case of cyber-fraud and the matter is still at the stage of investigation and chargesheet has not yet been filed. It is further submitted, on instructions from investigating officer, that during the course of investigation, it has been found that an amount of approximately Rs. 28.17 crores has been credited in the bank account of the petitioner and it is to be ascertained whether there have been any other victims of such fraud/scam. Therefore, it is argued that present petition be dismissed.

6. This Court has heard arguments addressed by learned counsels for petitioner and complainant as well as by learned ASC