Specific allegations of interaction and passport possession warrant investigation before quashing criminal proceedings.

Respondent No. 2 alleged that, after seeing advertisements for jobs in Poland on social media, he paid a total of ₹2,00,000 towards processing and handed over his passport; no job offer or work permit followed

The petitioner sought to quash the complaint and FIR, contending that he had worked only as a content creator for a company established by accused No. 1 and had resigned on 14 March 2024

The Court noted allegations of communication between the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 on 18 May 2024 and that Respondent No. 2 had handed his passport to the petitioner

The judgment refers to the challenged FIR as Crime No. 00167/2023 in the prayer but as Crime No. 0167/2024 in its account of the complaint

1. Whether the FIR and complaint should be quashed on the ground that the petitioner was only a content creator and had resigned from the company

2. Whether the specific allegations concerning the petitioner’s communication with Respondent No. 2 and possession of his passport required investigation before the Court could determine his role

The petition invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (and, as stated in the petition heading, Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), to seek quashing of proceedings. The alleged offences were under Sections 34, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

The Court’s stated approach was that, where specific allegations and material require investigation into an accused’s role, it is premature at that stage to conclude that no offence is made out; the investigation must assess each person’s individual role. No precedent was cited.

The petitioner’s claimed role as a content creator and his resignation were not sufficient, at the investigation stage, to establish that he had no connection with the alleged transaction. The allegations that he communicated with Respondent No. 2 after resigning and received the latter’s passport required investigation, including into the petitioner’s communications, the circumstances of the passport’s possession, his role in the advertisements, and any involvement in receiving or processing payments

The Court also stressed that the investigation should determine the petitioner’s individual role rather than infer criminal liability merely from his association with the company

It clarified that its observations were limited to the petition at the investigation stage and would not influence the Investigating Officer or the competent Court on the merits; the petitioner remained at liberty to pursue any remedy available in law if a charge sheet was filed