Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Virender Singh, J.
Swapnil Bhatt & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Central Bureau & Ors. – Respondents
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 33356 of 2022
Decided On : 14-03-2023
Section 482 - Quashment of FIR - IPC, IT Act, Forward Contracts Act, Securities Contracts Act - The court quashed the charge sheets filed against the petitioners under various sections of the IPC, IT Act, Forward Contracts Act, and Securities Contracts Act, citing lack of evidence and procedural irregularities. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the connection between the accused and the alleged offenses, and the evidence provided was unreliable and inadmissible. The court also noted allegations of bias, arbitrariness, and misconduct by the investigating agencies, leading to the conclusion that the continuation of the prosecution was an abuse of the process of law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were charged with various offenses related to fraudulent trading and misuse of software. The complainants alleged that the petitioners instigated them to trade in commodities using a fake commodity exchange, causing substantial financial losses. The investigation and subsequent charge sheets were challenged on the grounds of bias, procedural irregularities, and lack of concrete evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence provided by the prosecution, including reports from forensic and expert agencies, did not establish a clear connection between the accused and the alleged offenses. The court also noted procedural irregularities, bias, and misconduct by the investigating agencies, leading to the conclusion that the continuation of the prosecution was an abuse of the process of law. As a result, the court quashed the charge sheets and discharged the bail bonds of the petitioners.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the lack of concrete evidence linking the accused to the alleged offenses, procedural irregularities in the investigation, and allegations of bias and misconduct by the investigating agencies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision to quash the charge sheets was based on the lack of concrete evidence linking the accused to the alleged offenses, procedural irregularities in the investigation, and allegations of bias and misconduct by the investigating agencies. The court emphasized the need for reliable and admissible evidence to support the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the charge sheets filed against the petitioners, citing lack of evidence, procedural irregularities, and allegations of bias and misconduct by the investigating agencies. The bail bonds furnished by the petitioners were discharged, and the articles seized from the petitioners were ordered to be returned. The server was also directed to be returned to the authorized person of 'Cyber Futuristics Pvt. Ltd.'
JUDGMENT
Virender Singh, J. - This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, seeking quashment of FIR No. 498/2013 dated 28.10.2013 registered at P.S. Cyber and Hi-Tech Crime, Bhopal u/s 420 of IPC, 66A, 66D of I.T. Act which culminated into charge sheet no. 143 dated 27.01.2014 u/s 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120B and 34 of IPC, u/s 43-B, 65, 66-A, 66-D, 71, 74 and 85 of Information Technology Act, 2000, u/s 20-C, 21-A, 21-C, 21-G, 21-H of Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952, u/s 23-S of Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 and subsequently (sections have been mentioned according to the charge sheet), based on Notification issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh transferring the investigation to CBI, the crime was reregistered vide FIR No. RC0682014E0002-CBI/EOW-Mum/EO-III/ND dated 19.03.2014 at P.S. CBI, EOW, Mumbai which later transferred to CBI/EO-III, New Delhi and ultimately culminated into a supplementary charge sheet no. 22/2020 dated 30.12.2020 u/s 420 and 120B of IPC, Section 66-D of IT Act, 2000.
2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that petitioner No. 6 Amit Soni along with his real brother Anurag Soni and complainant Lokesh Sharma had established a company named A.U. Commodities Pvt. Ltd. in 2010 which later changed to M/s Moneyhouse Commodities (here-in-after referred to as the 'Company'). This company was authorized for future trading by Multi Commodity Exchange (in short MCX). On 22.07.2011, complainant Hemant Soni was appointed director of the said company. Initially, in 2010-11, complainant Kamlesh Dave was an authorized signatory of the said company. He was authorized to deal with all sorts of financial and administrative operations of the company under his signature. From 2011 onward, the entire work of the said company was being managed by complainant Hemant Soni. Due to some personal difficulties, petitioner Amit Soni resigned from the directorship of the said company in February 2013 and in the same year 2013, petitioner No. 4 Vinay Mahajan was appointed as Director. At the time of filing of the charge sheet, Anurag Soni and Vinay Mahajan were Directors of the Company. Anurag Soni was the sleeping director and was not looking after the day-to-day affairs of the company. At one point of time, complainants Navin Raghuvanshi, Hemant Soni and Lokesh Sharma were also Directors of the Company. Accused Amjad Belim, Vijay Semre, Swapnil Bhatt, Rajesh Rupawat, and Amit @ Gopal Neema were working in different offices of the company either as workers or managers. Accused Kunal Chaumar @ George and Rakesh Batra were providing technical support to the Company.
3. On 17.10.2013, complainants Vishal Garg, Lokesh Sharma, Navin Raghuvanshi, Samit Bule (since dead), Rajesh Soni, Kamlesh Dave, Hemant Soni, and Chandra Prakash Rathore filed a written complaint at P.S. Cyber and Hi-Tech Crime, Bhopal, M.P. on the basis of which Crime No. 498/2013 u/s 420 of IPC, Sections 66A and 66D of Information Technology Act, 2000, was registered on 28.10.2013 against the petitioners & others. Finding irregularities in the investigation, ADG (Cyber) recommended the transfer of the same to the Crime Investigation Department (for short CID), pursuant thereto; the investigation was handed over to the CID on 04.11.2013. Thereafter, vide Notification No. F-12-91/2013 B-1/(Two) dated 02.12.2013, the Home Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh requested the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Government of India to transfer the investigation of this FIR to the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as 'CBI'). Vide Notification No. 228/84/2013- AVD-II dated 10.03.2014 Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Government of India handed over the investigation of this FIR No. 498/2013 to CBI. But, after the request was made by the State Govt. to the Central Govt. but before the order of transfer of the
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and admissible evidence to support the prosecution's case. The court emphasized the need for concrete evidence linking....
Creation of a fake website constitutes a cybercrime that misleads individuals into financial fraud, warranting criminal prosecution.
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 affirmed that online fraud involving deceptive return practices constitutes cheating under IPC, emphasizing the necessity of a full trial for disputed facts.
The court established that a civil dispute can coexist with criminal liability, and the elements of cheating under IPC were satisfied based on the petitioners' actions and intentions.
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
