New Delhi: The Supreme Court highlighted the growing incidence of cyber fraud and the seriousness of such offenses, stating they should not be taken lightly, during a ruling on Friday, July 24. The court refused to quash or combine several FIRs filed across different states.
A panel consisting of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih dismissed a request from a petitioner who sought to annul four FIRs related to cyber fraud cases lodged in three states.
Despite the petitioner not being named in the FIRs, the court noted that the bank account associated with his proprietary business was mentioned. The petitioner’s request to consolidate the FIRs registered in Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Odisha in 2024, which fell under various sections of the previous Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Information Technology Act of 2000, was also rejected.
The court stated that the mere inclusion of the petitioner’s bank account in the allegations does not automatically link all the incidents as part of a single transaction. “We are also conscious that the investigation remains in its early stages. The nature of modern cyber fraud often involves intricate technological methods, numerous bank accounts, fictitious identities, and digital networks that span various jurisdictions,” the bench remarked.
The justices pointed out that investigating such crimes requires comprehensive forensic analysis of electronic evidence, scrutiny of banking transactions, and tracing monetary flows to identify those involved. They emphasized that since investigators have yet to fully understand the flow of funds and the complete sequence of events, ordering a unified investigation could hinder a thorough and fair inquiry.
The bench noted, “As cyber frauds increase, the seriousness and implications of these offenses cannot be overlooked,” stressing that many victims, often from rural backgrounds, are unaware of the tactics used by criminals to exploit their financial vulnerabilities.
The petitioner argued that he was uninvolved in the alleged crimes, having allowed a friend to utilize his bank account for an online gaming venture on a commission basis. Upon discovering the misuse, he filed a cybercrime complaint in May 2024, alleging fraudulent use of his account for illegal money transfers.
In addressing the request to quash the FIRs, the bench advised the petitioner to explore the remedies available to him in the high court. They also reviewed his request for the consolidation of FIRs and the assignment of a single investigative agency for a unified inquiry. Citing previous Supreme Court decisions, the bench acknowledged that multiple FIRs should not be registered if they pertain to the same incident or transaction. “However, if the subsequent FIR pertains to a separate offense or incident, its registration is permissible,” they stated.
The justices indicated that while the alleged methods in these cases appeared similar, the victims, the amounts involved, the transactions in question, and the consequences were distinct. The petitioner also expressed concern over facing proceedings in different states due to serious health issues, including cardiac ailments and diabetes. The bench recognized these difficulties but maintained that they did not justify the consolidation of FIRs that represent different offenses.
“Combining the FIRs could inconvenience the complainants, forcing them to navigate multiple legal proceedings,” the bench concluded. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, allowing the petitioner to seek appropriate legal relief as provided by law.
