Creation of a fake website constitutes a cybercrime that misleads individuals into financial fraud, warranting criminal prosecution.

CAV ORDER

Two of these petitions call in question proceedings in C.C.No.14359 of 2024 and the other two call in question crime in Crime No.219 of 2022. These petitions are preferred by different accused challenging initiation of criminal case/crime registered for offences punishable under Sections 406 , 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 34 of the IPC and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act , 2000 (‘the Act’ for short) in Crl.P.Nos.5539 of 2024 and 7032 of 2024 and for offences punishable under Sections 120B , 420 and 34 of the and of the Act in Crl.P.Nos.7416 of 2023 and 9272 of 2023.

2. Criminal Petition No.5539 of 2024 is preferred by accused No.4; Criminal Petition No.7032 of 2024 is preferred by accused No.2; Criminal petition No.7416 of 2023 is preferred by accused No.5; and Criminal Petition No.9272 of 2023 is preferred by accused No.3 all in Crime No.219 of 2022. In two criminal petitions charge sheets are filed and in other two criminal petitions charge sheets are yet to be filed owing to the fact that an interim order of stay was operating. Since the issue arises out of a solitary transaction, they are taken up together and considered by this common order.

3. Facts adumbrated in Criminal Petition No.5539 of 2024, which are almost common in other cases, are as follows:

3.1. The 2^nd respondent is the complainant. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant generates interest in establishing a sugar factory and was looking to raise loans for the said purpose. In the month of October, 2017 the complainant is said to have visited Celestial Tiles showroom at Indiranagar, Bengaluru owned by Vinay Agarwal. Vinay Agarwal is said to have arranged a meeting with Niyaz at Shangri La Hotel at Vasanthnagar, Bengaluru. Niyaz and Vinay Agarwal are said to have assured the complainant that they would arrange for a loan of ₹225/- crores. Niyaz and Vinay Agarwal are said to have asked the complainant to come to Chennai and meet State Bank of India officials at Park Hyat Hotel in Chennai. Niyaz and his wife Silmia introduced the complainant to one Sebaratnam Jeevan and Krishnamurthy Balaji. All of them are said to have lured the complainant that they would get ₹225/- crores from State Bank of India, Corporate Finance Branch and demanded a commission of 7% of the loan amount for getting the loan. The complainant is said to have agreed. Documents were transmitted to those accused. In furtherance of the said transaction one e-mail is communicated to the complainant and ₹49/- lakhs is said to have been credited in the account of the complainant that was opened in State Bank of India on 04-01-2018. Another e-mail transaction alert came from the website of sbicf.co.in informing that ₹115/- crores have been credited into the account of the complainant and again ₹110/- crores was shown to have been credited to the account of the complainant. The total available balance showed ₹225,49,00,000/-.

3.2. On the said balance being shown in the account of the complainant, the complainant pays ₹7.15 crores which is 50% of the commission amount. The complainant then goes and checks the account in the State Bank of India physically. On coming to know that the complainant had been duped out of a conspiracy, registers a complaint on 16-07-2022. The complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.219 of 2022. Two of the accused approached this Court in two petitions, where a coordinate Bench had granted an interim order of stay in favour of one of the accused and following that another Court grants an interim order of stay. In two of the cases, by the time th