Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
SAMEER JAIN, J.
Ram Singh S/o Kundan Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) Nos. 4394, 4762, 5151, 5441, 6799, 5442, 5443 of 2023
Decided On : 06-11-2024
(A) Information Technology Act, 2000 - Sections 2(ha), 2(i), 2(nb), 65, 66, 78 - Cybercrime - Allegations of fraud involving approximately Rs. 130 Crores against BPCL due to unauthorized transactions - FIR lodged under IPC Sections 420, 406, 418, and 120B - Court emphasized the need for a specialized investigation by the Cyber Cell due to the nature of the crime - The court found that the allegations pertain to a commercial fraud and white-collar crime, necessitating a thorough investigation. (Paras 16.1, 16.5, 17, 22)
(B) Criminal Proceedings - The court ruled that civil and criminal proceedings can coexist, and the registration of FIR is not barred by the existence of civil disputes - The court dismissed the petitions for quashing the FIRs, affirming the legitimacy of the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused. (Paras 18.1, 18.4, 18.10)
Key Points: - The court affirmed that civil and criminal proceedings can coexist, and the registration of an FIR is not barred by the existence of civil disputes (!) (!) (!) . - The court emphasized the need for a specialized investigation into cybercrime allegations against BPCL by the Cyber Cell due to the nature of the crime (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The court found that the allegations pertain to a commercial fraud and white-collar crime, necessitating a thorough investigation [p_16.5] (!) (!) (!) . - The court dismissed petitions for quashing FIRs, affirming the legitimacy of the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused [p_18.1][p_18.4][p_18.10] (!) (!) . - The court noted that the crime alleged in the matter pertains to a cybercrime, involving offenses under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (!) (!) . - The court highlighted that the prayer in the civil suit pertains to the ascertainment of exact liability/recovery, whereas criminal proceedings demand punitive action for alleged fraud (!) . - The court found that the judgments relied upon by the petitioners pertained to different factual matrices and did not align with the issue of cybercrime on a public sector company (!) . - The court observed that the books of accounts and notices reflected a shortage of amount on the part of the petitioners-accused, and they did not deny this fact (!) (!) . - The court directed that the matter be referred to the cyber cell/competent authority in terms of Section 78 of the IT Act (!) . - The court stated that it is not inclined to initiate a mini-trial or draw any presumption at the stage of investigation (!) .
JUDGMENT :
SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. A present bunch of petitions, sharing identical factual matrix and grounds, are filed before this Court. In one of the petition nos. 6799/2023, titled as Ravindra Pal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Court, with a prayer to transfer the investigation to the cyber cell for fair, independent, and efficacious investigation. Moreover, the abovementioned prayer is made by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) a public sector company, through its Competent Officer (complainant) whereas, the connected bunch of petitions in the instant matter are filed with a prayer to quash the FIR, on the ground that civil/contractual matters are given a color of criminal jurisprudence wherein, criminal proceedings are initiated.
2. With consensus of the parties, SBCRLMP No. 4394/2023 titled as Ram Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, is designated as a lead file, accordingly the instant bunch of petitions are taking up for final disposal.
3. The nitty-gritty of the instant matter is that the public sector company Bharat Petroleum Cooperation Limited (for short “BPCL”) which, for the benefit of its customers, through a marketing scheme, launched an advanced loyalty program on 17th December 2021. This program, designed as a closed loop wallet (Prepaid Payment Instrument) serves both B2B (business to business specifically transporters) and B2C (Business to Consumer, individual Customers) segments.
4. Through this scheme, customers can register themselves by providing their credentials, thereafter, on successful registration, a fleet account is created with the wallet in BPCL’s loyalty application which is seamlessly integrated with Razorpay and Pinelabs payment gateway for recharge wherein, loyalty customers have to login in their account in the application using their credentials to facilitate a fund transfers from their bank account/UPI/debit/credit card to Razorpay payment gateway.
5. Thereafter, the customer account wallet can be recharged for an amount via payment gateway interface modes, for instance net banking, UPI, credit/debit card, and Razorpay transfers the corresponding amount to BPCL bank account. Subsequently, on recharge of the said account, the amount in the wallet was utilized for the purchase of fuel only at BPCL fuel station, and all the fuel purchase transactions were made through OTP/PIN authentication process by the customers.
6. The controversy in this matter arose on March 31, 2023, when Razorpay's risk assessment team notified BPCL of observed anomalies and potential security concerns within the existing integration framework between the BPCL loyalty application and the Razorpay payment gateway, resulting in unauthorized and irregular recharge process that may lead to unauthorized or undue credits or recharge to customer account wallet.
7. Subsequently, upon receiving serious suspicion and concern, BPCL conducted a meticulous analysis of their data, and found that in approximately 1093 customer’s wallets various recharge amounting to the tune of approximately Rs. 130 Crores, were made without receipt of corresponding amount in BPCL’s bank account, therefore indicating a shortage of approximately Rs. 130 Crores. Moreover, from the analysis of the said data, it was deduced that 28 customers primarily located in Kota region, have allegedly engaged in fraudulent activities amounting to approximately Rs. 23 crores, resulting in wrongful loss to BPCL and suggesting a deliberate scheme intended to induce this financial harm.
8. Consequently, based on the aforesaid, FIR No. 204/2023 and other FIRs were lodged, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 418 and 120B of IPC, thereafter, Investigating Officer served notices upon the complainant under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. to furnish certain documents, and a detailed reply to the said notice along with the documents was provided to the investigating officer qua the said fraud.
9. In light of the aforementioned f
The court affirmed that civil and criminal proceedings can coexist, emphasizing the need for a specialized investigation into cybercrime allegations against BPCL.
The court emphasized that allegations of cyber fraud, which involve criminal culpability, cannot be dismissed as mere civil disputes, thereby mandating continuance of criminal proceedings.
The court confirmed that a fiduciary relationship can give rise to criminal liability under IPC sections for failure to remit entrusted funds, emphasizing that both civil and criminal remedies may be....
Cheating - Quash of FIR and Proceeding - Complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available, is not by itself a ground to quash criminal procee....
Criminal conspiracy in terms of Section 120-B of the Code is an independent offence. It is punishable separately.
The court affirmed that a party only involved in a civil contract cannot face criminal liability unless it directly transacted or misappropriated funds, supporting the need for a clear distinction be....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
