Raushan Kumar and Co-accused Denied Relief; Court Emphasizes Prima Facie Evidence and Habitual Offences
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition filed by Raushan Kumar and another accused seeking to quash the FIR and chargesheet related to a high-profile cyber fraud case. The court underscored the prima facie establishment of offences and the habitual nature of the accused as key reasons for its decision.
The case revolves around an elaborate cyber scam wherein the accused allegedly defrauded complainant Sushil Kumar of Rs. 40,82,272. The fraudulent activity involved a fake Facebook page purporting to be of VIZAG STEEL PVT. LTD. The complainant was induced to deposit money into an account through false promises of material delivery. The accused were arrested in a coordinated effort by the Puducherry Police and were found in possession of various incriminating items including multiple mobile phones, fake invoices, debit cards, and a substantial amount of cash.
The petitioners challenged the chargesheet dated 23.12.2025, associated with FIR No.0178 dated 21.12.2024, registered under Sections 318(4) and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and relevant sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000. They argued the absence of direct evidence linking them to the complainant’s loss, contending that the case rested solely on the disclosure statements of co-accused.
However, the State counsel presented a compelling argument supported by evidence of recoveries made during the arrests and highlighted the accused's involvement in multiple similar cases across different jurisdictions. The court noted the recovery of 27 mobile phones, numerous debit cards, and a sum of Rs.18,77,500 from the accused, which corroborated their involvement in the scam.
Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, presiding over the case, emphasized the gravity of the allegations and the role played by the accused in the cyber fraud. The court observed that the habitual nature of the accused, coupled with the substantial recoveries made, justified the continuation of proceedings. The judgment stressed that it is the prerogative of the Trial Court to evaluate the evidence and determine the guilt of the accused.
This decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to addressing cyber crimes with the seriousness they warrant, especially in cases involving habitual offenders. The ruling also serves as a deterrent to those engaged in cyber frauds, reinforcing the legal system’s intolerance towards such criminal activities.
Bottom Line:
Petition to quash FIR and chargesheet under Section 318(4) and 61 of BNS, 2023, along with consequential proceedings - Accused involved in a cyber fraud scam with substantial recoveries made and multiple similar cases registered against them - FIR not quashed as offences prima facie established, habitual nature of accused considered, and matter to be decided by Trial Court.
Statutory provision(s): Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 318(4), Section 61; Information Technology Act, 2000 Sections 66C and 66D
Raushan Kumar v. State Of Haryana, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc id # 2865624
