Dismissed

Mrs. Hu Xiaolin v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Nov 2023WP/12417/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash FIRs registered against petitioners regarding fraud allegations in 'Power Bank' app. Court dismissed petition, holding innocence must be established via investigation, and ordered transfer of files to Cyber Crime Bureau for consolidated inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; FIR Crime No.71/2021 transferred to Cyber Crime Police Station, CID Division.

Mrs. Hu Xiaolin Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:40835 WP No. 12417 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 12417 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MRS. HU XIAOLIN, WIFE OF ANAS AHMED, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, CHINA PASSPORT NO. E83749100, RESIDING AT NO. 366, SWISS TOWN, NEAR CLARKS EXOTICA, SADAHALLI GATE, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 562 110.

¶8

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

MRS. DONG XIAONING, WIFE OF CHANDANKUMAR SHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, CHINA PASSPORT NO. E64329214 PRESTIGE LAKE, SIDE HABITAT UNIT, NO.11205, VARTHUR HOBLI, GUNJUR VILLAGE, MARATHAHALLI, SARJAPURA, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 087.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. IMRAN A, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY HOME DEPARTMENT, BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,

¶14

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:40835 WP No. 12417 of 2021

¶15

BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶16

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BESIDE RBI, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶17

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, INFANTRY ROAD,

¶18

BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶19

THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CID, NO.1, CARLTON HOUSE, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶20

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CID, CYBER CRIME POLICE, NO.1, CARLTON HOUSE, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶21

INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CID, CYBER CRIME POLICE, NO.1, CARLTON HOUSE, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶22

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TUMKUR CEN CRIME POLICE, TUMKUR - 572 101.

¶23

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TUMKUR CEN CRIME POLICE STATION, TUMKUR - 572 101.

¶24

T. H. MANJUNATHA, SON OF HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:40835 WP No. 12417 of 2021

¶27

TALEMARADAHALLI, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKURU - 561 202.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. B.A. BELLIAPPA, SPP ALONG WITH SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP FOR R1 TO R8; SRI. HANUMANTHARAYA. S, ADVOCATE FOR R9)

¶30

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE FIR IN CRIME NO.71/2021 REGISTERED BY THE R8 POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 FOR THE OFFENCES U/S 66C, 66D OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2008 AND 419 AND 420 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT TUMKUR, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶31

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The petitioners being aggrieved by the first information report registered by the respondent No.1 in Crime No.71/2021 for the offences punishable under Section 66C, 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2008 and 419 and 420 of IPC pending consideration before the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Tumkur are before this Court.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:40835 WP No. 12417 of 2021

¶36

The respondent No.9, informed the respondent No.1 on 17.05.2021 about commission of cognizable offences by Power Bank app owned and operated by Claravida Finsarv Private Limited registered in Haryana State. He alleged that being attracted by the offer made by Power Bank app that for every hour of investment, he would get a return of Rs.18/-. He had invested a sum of Rs.15,000/-. He claimed that he and other persons in the chain had invested a sum of Rs.12,96,410/-. However, he found that on 10.05.2021 the promoters of Power Bank taking advantage of COVID-19 Pandemic had deleted the app from the Google Play Store and thereby, defrauded him and other investors. Based on this the respondent No.1 registered a case in Crime No.71/2021 for the aforesaid offences. The respondent No.1 took up investigation and found that the petitioners herein were involved in the commission of offences and therefore, sought for a body warrant, as the petitioners were arraigned as accused No.19 and 20 in Crime No.8/2021. The petitioners are therefore before this Court to quash the proceedings initiated against them and the consequent investigation launched.

¶37

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:40835 WP No. 12417 of 2021

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the petitioners were already arraigned as accused in Crime No.8/2021 and therefore, registration of another case against the petitioners in Crime No.8/2021 was not warranted. He submits that Crime No.71/2021 was registered against unknown accused and there was no basis for the Investigating Officer to seek for a body warrant against the petitioners. He contends that a case in Crime No.71/2021 ought to have been considered as further information in Crime No.8/2021, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of T.T.Antony

¶39

V/s State of Kerala reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181. He further submits that there are no allegations against the petitioners and consequently, involving the petitioners in the investigation in Crime No.71/2021 is not warranted.

¶40

Per Contra, the learned SPP submits that Crime No.8/2021 was lodged by Razorpay Software Private Limited which was a payment gateway aggregator which facilitated initiation and receipt of payments in electronic form. He submitted that Razorpay Software Private Limited had alleged that 10 merchants who had availed the facility of the payment gate way were authorized to operate their business in specific

¶41

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:40835 WP No. 12417 of 2021

¶42

categories. However, they defrauded Razorpay Software Private Limited by deviating from their original category of business, in which they were registered and started routing business by transacting through "Power Bank" an app listed in Google Play Store. He submits that proceedings initiated against the accused in Crime No.8/2021 was unsuccessfully challenged before this Court in WP No.12417/2021 and other connected petitions and therefore submits that the proceedings is still at an initial stage and therefore, this Court may not exercise jurisdiction to quash the investigation launched against the petitioners.

¶43

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned SPP for the respondents.

¶44

It is not in dispute that the petitioners are accused Nos.19 and 20 in Crime No.8/2021 which was registered by the Cyber Crime Police Station, CID for the offences punishable under Section 66D of Information Technology Act, 2008 and Section 420 of IPC. The allegation in Crime No.8/2021 was that certain merchants who had availed the payment gate way of

¶45

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:40835 WP No. 12417 of 2021

¶46

Razorpay had routed their transaction to collect payments from a different business name "Power Bank", an app listed in the Google Play Store. Those merchants also managed to deviate from their registered category and secured to access the Power Bank app to route transaction through Razorpay. No doubt a passing reference is made to complaints by customers that individual investors had invested money in "Power Bank" app and that after accepting deposits, neither the agreed interest nor the principal was refunded . It did not give specific details of any individual investors. It is relevant to note that Razorpay lodged the complaint on 01.06.2021. In the case on hand the complaint was filed by an individual investor on 17.05.2021 alleging that certain investment made by him and other individual investors in "Power Bank" were defrauded of such investment as they claimed that the Power Bank app was deleted from the Google Play Store and thereby, they had no due about their investment. The allegations contained in both these complaints are entirely different and therefore, information furnished by the respondent No.9 in Crime No.71/2021 cannot be treated as further information in Crime No.8/2021. However, since the case in Crime No.71/2021

¶47

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:40835 WP No. 12417 of 2021

¶48

needs to be investigated by a Cyber Crime Division, it is appropriate that the case in Crime No.71/2021 is transferred to the Cyber Crime Police Station, CID Sub-division for a comprehensive investigation of not only Crime No.8/2021 but also Crime No.71/2021. This Court in WP.No.10986/2021 filed by the petitioners challenging the registration of an FIR in Crime No.8/2021 held that the contention urged by them that they are innocent of the allegations and that they are not concerned with "Power Bank" app are all matters of investigation. The contention urged by the petitioners that they are innocent of the accusations made in Crime No.71/2021, cannot be considered at this stage as the investigation is underway and it is for the petitioners to establish that they were not concerned with "Power Bank" or if concerned to explain under what circumstances the "Power Bank" app was deleted from the Google Play Store and that they did not receive any money invested by the individual investors. In that view of the matter, this petition is dismissed .

¶49

However Crime No.71/2021 registered by the

¶50

Tumkur Central Crime Police Station is ordered to be transferred to the Cyber Crime Police Station, CID Division to

¶51

¶52

NC: 2023:KHC:40835 WP No. 12417 of 2021

¶53

be investigated along with Crime No.8/2021 if a charge-sheet

¶54

in Crime No.8/2021 is not filed.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

KBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13 CT: BHK

Mrs. Hu Xiaolin v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Hu Xiaolin v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Bhagya Bai @ Bhagyamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Naveena D R Vs Smt B H Latha

Smt Suma K Vs the State by Lokayuktha Police

Raghavendra Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri K G Suresh Vs Smt Jyothi S G

The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise(Legal) Vs M/S Anugraha Engineering