Back
asks State to produce evidence linking to WhatsApp marriage invite fraud
The has directed the to submit all material evidence linking the payment gateway company to a sophisticated cyber fraud scheme that used fake marriage invitations sent via WhatsApp to steal money from victims. The direction comes in response to ’s petition seeking to quash three First Information Reports (FIRs) filed by the , which named the company as an accused in the scam.
According to the FIRs, the fraudsters sent a file disguised as a marriage invitation through WhatsApp. When recipients clicked on the file link, it allegedly triggered an unauthorized transfer of money from their bank accounts to accounts controlled by the fraudsters. The payment gateway used for these transfers was identified as . Three complainants—BK Nageshiah, Subhash Chandra Jujarth, and Vashishtha Narayan Jha—collectively lost approximately ₹12.5 lakh. The individual losses were ₹7,44,989, ₹2,69,729, and ₹2,34,917 respectively.
The FIRs were registered under Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the , which deal with and cheating by impersonation using computer resources, as well as Sections 318(4) and 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which cover and . was impleaded as an accused in all three cases.
Background: The Modus Operandi
The scam, often referred to as the "marriage invite" fraud, has become increasingly common in India. Fraudsters send a seemingly harmless wedding invitation file—typically an APK or a link—via WhatsApp or other messaging platforms. Once the recipient opens the file, malware is installed on their device, allowing the fraudsters to access sensitive banking credentials and initiate unauthorized transactions. In this instance, the stolen funds were allegedly routed through ’s payment gateway, prompting the police to include the company in the investigation.
, a payment solutions provider, denied any wrongdoing and approached the High Court under (now ) to quash the FIRs. The company argued that it was merely a payment facilitator and had no knowledge of or involvement in the fraudulent scheme. It further contended that its name was included in the FIRs without any substantive evidence linking it to the crime.
Court’s and Recent Direction
Earlier, the High Court granted from arrest to officials, preventing any coercive action until the next hearing. Now, the court has directed the State to produce all material that connects to the fraud. The bench, while not elaborating on the specifics, emphasized the need for the prosecution to demonstrate a case against the company before the court could decide on the quashing plea.
The court’s order is significant because it places the burden on the State to show that the payment gateway was not merely a passive conduit but played an active role in the fraudulent transactions. Legal experts note that this approach aligns with the principle that intermediaries cannot be held liable for third-party content or transactions unless there is evidence of knowledge, collusion, or failure to exercise .
Legal Analysis: Liability of Payment Gateways in Cyber Fraud
The case raises critical questions about the extent of criminal liability that can be attributed to payment gateways and other financial intermediaries in cyber fraud cases. Under the IT Act, intermediaries are generally protected by (Section 79) if they do not initiate, select, or modify the content and comply with requirements. However, the BNS provisions invoked here—Sections 318 and 319—are substantive criminal offenses that can apply to any person who dishonestly misappropriates property or cheats by personation.
For to be successfully prosecuted, the prosecution must establish or at least . The fact that the company’s payment gateway was used to process the fraudulent transactions does not automatically make it complicit. The court’s direction to produce evidence suggests that it is not inclined to dismiss the FIRs without a thorough examination of the facts.
This case also highlights the increasing trend of law enforcement naming financial intermediaries in FIRs to pressure them into cooperating or compensating victims. While such inclusion may be a legitimate investigative strategy, it raises concerns for companies that operate within legal frameworks.
Impact on Legal Practice and the Fintech Sector
The outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications for the fintech and payment gateway industry. If the court quashes the FIRs, it will reinforce the safe harbor protections and encourage innovation by reducing the fear of criminal liability for mere facilitation. Conversely, if the court upholds the FIRs, it may set a precedent that payment gateways must implement more stringent fraud detection mechanisms and could be held accountable for downstream fraud.
For legal practitioners, this case serves as a reminder of the importance of challenging frivolous or premature criminal proceedings through quashing petitions under Section 482 CrPC. It also underscores the need for fintech companies to maintain robust compliance and documentation to demonstrate .
Conclusion
The ’s decision to demand evidence linking to the marriage invite cyber fraud is a measured step in a case that could define the boundaries of intermediary liability in the digital age. As the State complies with the order, all eyes will be on the evidence presented and the court’s ultimate ruling. For now, ’s officials continue to enjoy , and the company remains hopeful that the FIRs will be quashed for lack of substantive allegations. The case is scheduled for further hearing, where the material will be scrutinized.
