Back
'Crime Thriller' Unfolds: Karnataka HC Crushes Bid to Bury ₹7 Crore Cyber Heist
In a scathing dismissal that reads like a courtroom drama, the rejected petitions by four accused to quash proceedings in a brazen cyber fraud case. Justice M. Nagaprasanna likened the scam—where a businessman was duped of ₹7.15 crore via a fake website—to a " crime thriller or crime pot boiler ." The order upholds charges under and , sending the case for full trial.
From Sugar Dreams to Digital Deception
Vinayak Kabadi, a Gadag businessman eyeing a sugar factory, fell into a trap in . Introduced to Vinay Kumar Agarwal at his Indiranagar tile showroom, Kabadi met Niyaz (Muzib Abdul Mian) at a Bengaluru hotel. Promises of a ₹225 crore SBI loan flowed, with a 7% commission tag. Lured to Chennai's Park Hyatt, Niyaz's wife Silmia introduced Sebaratnam Jeevan and K. Balajee. Fake documents in Rolta India Ltd's name, a bogus SBI account (No. 60971523983), and phishing emails from "sbicf.co.in" showed credits: ₹49 lakh, then ₹115 crore, ₹110 crore—totaling ₹225.49 crore.
Believing it real, Kabadi paid ₹7.15 crore in cash and transfers across 14 tranches from . Reality hit at the bank branch: zero balance. Accused vanished , citing "SBI glitches" and a fake ICICI DD. COVID delays pushed the FIR to (Crime No. 219/2022, ), leading to charge sheets in CC 14359/2024.
Petitioners—Balajee (A4, Crl.P.5539/2024), Silmia (A2, Crl.P.7032/2024), Sebaratnam (A5, Crl.P.7416/2023), Agarwal (A3, Crl.P.9272/2023)—sought quashing under .
Accused Cry Foul: 'Civil Deal Gone Sour, Not Crime'
Counsel hammered home a "purely civil" narrative: mere loan facilitation failure, no
for cheating from inception. Delay of four years? Fatal, they argued, without explanation. Transactions spanned Chennai-Bengaluru, questioning jurisdiction. Senior advocates
(Agarwal) and
(Silmia) cited
precedents barring criminal color to recovery suits.
"Business transaction turned
,"
they urged, denying roles—introductions only, no fund handling.
Prosecution's Web of Evidence: Hackers, Fake Sites, Laundered Loot
State Public Prosecutor
and complainant counsel
paraded charge sheet details: fake "www.sbicf.co.in" (registered 2017, deleted 2018 via Endurance Domains), hacked SBI OTPs/WhatsApp alerts mimicking credits. Funds traced to shell firms like Welcome Enterprises; accused's prior convictions (
,
). Sebaratnam as "hacker brain," Niyaz-Agarwal-Silmia lurers, Balajee enabler.
"Not recovery—structured cyber fraud eroding bank trust,"
they countered, explaining COVID for delay.
Echoes Seal the Fate
Justice Nagaprasanna dissected arguments, invoking recent Apex Court wisdom. In Rocky v. State of Telangana (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2713), civil remedies don't bar prosecution if offence ingredients shine. Anurag Bhatnagar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1514) greenlit trials despite MoU breaches with cheating vibes. Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1428) nixed civil pendency as quashing shield. Punit Beriwala v. State of NCT of Delhi (2025 SCC OnLine SC 983) affirmed: demand investigation, commercial cloak irrelevant.
"Allegations transcend breach of promise... strike at public trust in banking,"
the judge ruled, spotlighting forgery (fake site, docs, DD) and conspiracy. Roles? Crystal: Agarwal inducted, Silmia hosted, all siphoned via cartel.
Key Observations
"The complaint itself is a document of striking detail. It narrates, step by step, how a fictitious banking edifice was erected to lull the complainant into a false sense of security; how a counterfeit digital infrastructure masquerading as thewas employed."
"The investigation has revealed not an isolated lapse, but a concerted conspiracy allegedly replicated across States... The summary of the charge sheet painstakingly delineates the part played by each accused—from introduction and inducement to technological execution, to siphoning off and laundering of funds."
"If in these cases indulgence is shown under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., it would amount to putting a premium on the cyber hacking by the accused. The accused are a cartel who have succeeded in cheating the complainant to the tune of ₹7.15 crores."
No Escape Hatch: Trial Beckons, Premium on Justice
Petitions dismissed; interim stays vacated. Charge sheets proceed (two filed, two pending). Implications? Cyber scams can't hide as "civil" deals— materials demand trial, not judicial nip. Future fraudsters face fuller scrutiny, especially with digital forgeries. As news reports echoed, this "akin to crime thriller" saga underscores: hackers' house of cards crumbles in court.
