Absence of Direct Financial Benefit Does Not Negate Prima Facie Involvement in Cyber Fraud Operations

The petitioner filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash FIR CR No. 11216026240003 of 2024 registered at Cyber Crime Police Station, Gandhinagar

The case involves a cyber fraud where a first informant was induced via WhatsApp to transfer ₹3,50,000/- for "tasks," out of which ₹2,00,000/- was routed to an account operated by Sujal Babubhai Patel

Investigation revealed that Sujal was an employee of the petitioner and was allegedly instructed by the petitioner to open bank accounts for a commission

A witness, Vishad Mehta, stated that the petitioner introduced him to a system of transferring money through an Angadiya Pedhi for commissions

1. Whether the FIR and subsequent proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed on the ground of false implication and lack of connecting material

2. Whether the discrepancies between a witness's first and second statements are sufficient to warrant the exercise of discretionary powers to quash the investigation

The court primarily applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponds to Section 482 of the CrPC), regarding the High Court's inherent power to quash criminal proceedings

The court also evaluated the presence of a prima facie case based on the evidentiary value of witness statements and the nature of cyber fraud transactions to determine if the continuous investigation constitutes an abuse of process

The court examined the petitioner’s contention that he was being implicated solely because a witness contacted him to buy a second-hand car and that the witness had changed his story between two statements

However, the court found that the 19.04.2024 statement of witness Vishad Mehta directly linked the petitioner to the illicit financial operations, including instructing Sujal Patel to handle money transfers through Angadiya services for commissions

The court reasoned that while there were discrepancies between the witness's statements (dated 02.04.2024 and 19.04.2024), the facts narrated in the later statement could not be discarded at this preliminary stage

Furthermore, the court noted that the petitioner has a prior criminal record of a similar nature, which, combined with the investigative papers, establishes a prima facie case of involvement in the cyber fraud

The court dismissed the petition, refusing to quash the FIR or stay the investigation