Facts
The five petitioners, undergraduate students, were employed by a matrimonial service ("Jeewan Jodi Matrimonial") to upload posts on social media for a salary of ₹8,000.
Source reference: p. 3, para 3An FIR (No. 424/2025) was registered alleging that these platforms used fake profiles to defraud individuals, with funds totaling ₹17,97,790/- collected in 79 bank accounts belonging to the main accused, Sahil Kumar Kaushik.
Source reference: p. 3, para 4; p. 6, para 11The petitioners were charged under Sections 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 111, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Source reference: p. 2, para 2They sought quashing of the FIR, charge sheet, and the order taking cognizance, claiming they were mere salaried employees with no knowledge of the fraud.
Source reference: p. 4, para 6-7Issues
1. Whether the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings against the petitioners should be quashed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) on the grounds that the allegations are improbable and the petitioners were merely employees.
Source reference: p. 5, para 7-82. Whether the High Court, in its inherent jurisdiction, can adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact regarding the petitioners' intent and knowledge during the stage of quashing.
Source reference: p. 7, para 13Law Applied
The Court applied the settled principles of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS), specifically the "rarest of rare" doctrine for quashing as established in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, which allows interference only if allegations disclose no offence or are maliciously instituted.
Source reference: p. 6, para 10; p. 7, para 16The Court relied on Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, holding that courts cannot inquire into the reliability or genuineness of allegations at this stage.
Source reference: p. 7-8, para 16The Court cited State Rep. by Inspector of Police v. M. Maridoss, which prohibits the conduct of a "mini-trial" during quashing proceedings.
Source reference: p. 8, para 17Reasoning
The Court observed that the FIR specifically alleged the creation of fake matrimonial profiles to defraud the public, and the investigation suggested the petitioners were actively involved in managing and uploading this fraudulent content.
Source reference: p. 6, para 11-12While the petitioners argued they were innocent wagers/employees without mens rea, the Court determined that such claims constitute "disputed questions of fact".
Source reference: p. 7, para 13Applying the rule from Neharika Infrastructure, the Court noted it must take the FIR allegations at face value rather than assessing their merit.
Source reference: p. 8, para 16Since the material collected—including the management of the digital platforms used for the fraud—prima facie disclosed cognizable offences, the Court found that the case did not meet the stringent criteria for quashing under the Bhajan Lal parameters.
Source reference: p. 8-9, para 18Holding
The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the FIR and charge sheet prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences.
The Court answered that the petitioners' defense regarding their role as mere employees must be examined during the trial through the appreciation of evidence, not in a quashing petition.
Source reference: p. 7, para 13Relief to quash the FIR (dated 16/09/2025) and the Charge Sheet (dated 28/12/2025) was denied.
Source reference: p. 9, para 19Original Court PDF
SURAJ KUMARvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in