Calcutta High Court - Port Blair
Aza Enterprises Private Ltd. And Others vs The Union Territory Of Andaman And ... on 22 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR]
********
PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
CRR/33/2025
Aza Enterprises Private Ltd. and Others ... Petitioner
Vs
The Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar
Islands and Others ... Respondents
For the petitioners : Ramakrishna Srinivasan
For the respondents no. 1 & 2 : Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar
For the respondent no. 3 : Mr. Ashish Deep Verma
(Through virtual mode)
Heard on : 16.12.2025
Judgment on : 22.12.2025
With
CRM(A)/4/2025
(IA NO: CRAN/1/2025)
Vaibhav Gupta ... Petitioner
Vs
The Union Territory of Andaman and
Nicobar Islands ... Respondents
For the petitioner : Ramakrishna Srinivasan
For the respondents no. 1 & 2 : Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar
Heard on : 16.12.2025
Judgment on : 22.12.2025
2
With
CRR/34/2025
Vaibhav Gupta ... Petitioner
Vs
The Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar
Islands and Others ... Respondents
For the petitioners : Ramakrishna Srinivasan
For the respondents no. 1 & 2 : Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar
For the respondent no. 3 : Mr. Ashish Deep Verma
(Through virtual mode)
Heard on : 16.12.2025
Judgment on : 22.12.2025
With
CRR/45/2025
Ravindra K ... Petitioner
Vs
The Union Territory of Andaman and
Nicobar Islands ... Respondents
For the petitioner : Mr. Abhishek K.
: Mr. Sharath Chandra N
: Mr. Sumit Kumar Sakthi
For the respondents no. 1 & 2 : Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar
For the respondent no. 3 : Mr. Ashish Deep Verma
(Through virtual mode)
Heard on : 16.12.2025
Judgment on : 22.12.2025
3
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
1. The revisional application has been preferred praying for quashing of the FIR, including the proceedings in FIR No. 0035, dated: 13-07-2025, Under sections 3(5), 316(1), 316(5), 318(1), 318(3), 336(1), 336(3), 61(1), 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at Cyber Crime Police Station of South Andaman District.
2. The petitioner's case is that petitioner No. 1, Aza Enterprises Private. Ltd., is a lawfully incorporated company under the Companies Act, 2013, engaged in agro and food product sales. Petitioners No. 2 and 3, its Directors, have no connection with cryptocurrency activities. The FIR was lodged by Akhil Bharat Kukreja, claiming to act for a foreign entity, DCI Capital, without furnishing any authority documents such as Power of Attorney, board resolution, or Vakalatnama.
3. The complaint alleges a cryptocurrency fraud involving USDT and USD routed through the petitioner company, which the petitioners deny. No contractual relationship, SAFT agreement, or financial transactions exist between them and DCI Capital. The company's bank statements and IT records (Dec 2024-June 2025) confirm the absence of such dealings.
4. It is further stated that no proof has been submitted regarding DCI Capital's legal existence or registration in India, 4 raising doubts about the complainant's locus standi. Accused No. 3, Latifa Bano, a senior citizen with no technical background, is named without any specific role or intent attributed to her.
5. Further, invoking Sections 316 (criminal breach of trust) and 318 (cheating) on the same facts is legally impermissible, as held in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of U.P., Cr. Appeal No. 3114 of 2024. These are distinct offences and cannot co-exist on identical allegations. Moreover, in the absence of any regulatory framework for cryptocurrency in India, the FIR lacks legal foundation.
6. The petitioners, therefore, seek quashing of the impugned F.I.R. and the proceedings related to the F.I.R., to prevent continued harassment and miscarriage of justice.
7. The allegations as transpires from the written complaint against the accused persons goes like this :-
"1. That the Complainant, DCI Capital (Dutch Crypto Investors) (registered corporate entity named Dutch Consultant Innovation Limited), is a prominent international crypto investment entity, engaged in legitimate funding and facilitation of digital asset transactions globally, with a robust presence and reputation among investors. The present complaint is being filed through its duly authorized legal counsel.
2. That the Complainant was initially approached by Mohammed Waseem (Accused No. 2), Founder and Director of Aza Enterprises Private Limited (Accused No. 1 Company), a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 and 5 registered with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (CIN:
U46302AN2023PTC006042). Accused No. 2 represented himself as a broker, promising exclusive OTC crypto deals sourced directly from project teams. It is pertinent to mention that Accused No. 2 first engaged with the Complainant in 2024 regarding a Fuel Network OTC deal, and subsequently conducted certain smaller transactions successfully via his Telegram group, thereby creating an initial facade of legitimacy. In April 2025, the Complainant further met Accused No. 2 in person at Dubai, which further reinforced the trust and confidence in him.
3. That subsequently, Accused No. 4, Mr. Vaibhav Gupta alias "Gaptu", and Accused No.5, Daku alias Mr. Diwan Saurabh, joined as intermediaries, further strengthening the false narrative that these deals were fully secured and token deliveries were guaranteed. Accused No. 5 was known to the Complainant since 2021 through a private Telegram Key Opinion Leader (KOL) group, comprising approximately 180 members, wherein he periodically offered so-called "exclusive"
project allocations and misused his longstanding community presence to build fraudulent credibility. Accused No. 4 was introduced to the Complainant through the same group, and deceitfully portrayed himself as being associated with Binance, thereby presenting himself as an authoritative and reliable figure in the crypto space. It was only at a later stage that the Complainant discovered that Accused No. 4 was merely a Telegram group moderator and not formally affiliated with Binance in any capacity.
4. That it is crucial to note that all communications with Accused Nos. 2, 4, and 5 took place through private Telegram groups which had disabled screenshot functionality, making it impossible for the Complainant to preserve visual records of such exchanges.
5. That these accused persons, in concert with Accused No. 6, Ravindra Kumar (the ultimate mastermind), misrepresented to the Complainant that they had direct allocations from crypto projects including Beam, Axelar, Kava, The Graph, Celestia, Virtuals, EGLD, Berachain, ImmutableX, Vana, Sei, Aptos, ZRO, AGLD, Wormhole, Near, Sui, Grass, REZ, Sandbox, and Fluid, with guaranteed delivery and steep discounts.
6. That acting in reliance upon these repeated assurances, misrepresentations, and the carefully crafted narrative of trust, the Complainant initially invested smaller amounts, which were deliberately fulfilled by the Accused(s) to establish false credibility, thereby inducing the Complainant into making significantly larger investments subsequently. 6
7. That the Complainant ultimately advanced large sums (totaling multiple millions of dollars), but as market conditions surged, the accused persons began delaying distributions, eventually ceasing delivery entirely.
8. That despite continuous follow-ups, the accused persons provided false explanations, fabricated regulatory narratives, and shared forged documents to mislead the Complainant.
9. That upon conducting enquiry, the Complainant discovered that Accused No. 6. Ravindra Kumar, was the principal orchestrator, directing all funds into wallets controlled by him, using Accused No. 1 Company as a corporate veil to conceal and legitimize fraud.
10. That Aza Enterprises Private Limited has been systematically misused as a vehicle to perpetrate this fraud. The Complainant has suffered enormous financial losses amounting to approximately USDT 6.56 million (from Accused No. 2). USD 2.1 million (from Accused No. 4), and USD 1.68 million (from Accused No.
5), apart from additional losses as substantiated through project-by-project Excel records, all resulting in grave harm to reputation and investor trust globally. In order to substantiate the above claims, the following is the comprehensive project wise summary table demonstrating each crypto project, the total amount sent/ invested by the Complainant, and the remaining outstanding amounts due to the Complainant:".
8. The petitioners have thus prayed for quashing of the proceedings herein on three grounds among others :-
I. Cheating and criminal breach of trust are distinct and cannot ordinarily coexist.
II. Drafting of the written complaint has been designed to circumvent the true nature of the dispute. III. Civil & Commercial disputes camouflaged and given a cloak of criminality.7
9. Learned Counsel Mr. Srinivasan appearing for the petitioners in CRR/33/2025 has strongly relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors - versus - State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 3114 of 2024, (Paragraphs 27, 35, 36, 37, 41, 42 & 43).
10. Paragraphs 41, 42 and 43 of the Judgment in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. (Supra), being relevant are set out herein :-
"41. Before we close this matter, we would like to say something as regards the casual approach of the courts below in cases like the one at hand. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) was the official Criminal Code in the Republic of India inherited from the British India after independence. The IPC came into force in the sub-continent during the British rule in 1862. The IPC remained in force for almost a period of 162 years until it was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita ("BNS") in December 2023 which came into effect on 1st July 2024. It is indeed very sad to note that even after these many years, the courts have not been able to understand the fine distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating.
42. When dealing with a private complaint, the law enjoins upon the magistrate a duty to meticulously examine the contents of the complaint so as to determine whether the offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust as the case may 8 be is made out from the averments made in the complaint. The magistrate must carefully apply its mind to ascertain whether the allegations, as stated, genuinely constitute these specific offences. In contrast, when a case arises from a FIR, this responsibility is of the police - to thoroughly ascertain whether the allegations levelled by the informant indeed falls under the category of cheating or criminal breach of trust. Unfortunately, it has become a common practice for the police officers to routinely and mechanically proceed to register an FIR for both the offences i.e. criminal breach of trust and cheating on a mere allegation of some dishonesty or fraud, without any proper application of mind.
43. It is high time that the police officers across the country are imparted proper training in law so as to understand the fine distinction between the offence of cheating viz-a-viz criminal breach of trust. Both offences are independent and distinct. The two offences cannot coexist simultaneously in the same set of facts. They are antithetical to each other. The two provisions of the IPC (now BNS, 2023) are not twins that they cannot survive without each other.
11. Other than the judgment in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors (Supra), the petitioners have also relied upon the following judgments in respect of their argument "CHEATING CO-EXIST".
9
(i) Chava Venugopal vs State of for Andhra Pradesh [CRLP. No.4960 0F 2025] (Paragraphs no. 9 & 17).
(ii) Kuldeep Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
[(2024) AHC 148596] (Paragraphs no. 7, 8 & 9).
(iii) Dinesh Gupta vs State of Uttar Pradesh [(2024) SC 34] (Paragraphs no. 36, 38 & 39).
(iv) Shailesh Kumar Vs State of U.P (2025) INSC 869 (Paragraphs no. 11, 12, 13 & 15).
(v) Anukul Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) SCC 948 (Paragraphs no. 12, 13, 14 & 15).
12. Mr. Srinivasan, relying upon the judgment in Shailesh Kumar Singh alias Shailesh R. Singh (Supra) places paragraph 9 :-
"9. What we have been able to understand is that there is an oral agreement between the parties. The Respondent No.4 might have parted with some money in accordance with the oral agreement and it may be that the appellant - herein owes a particular amount to be paid to the Respondent No.4. However, the question is whether prima facie any offence of cheating could be said to have been committed by the appellant.".
13. It is thus the contention of the petitioners herein that in view of the final observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors (Supra) at Para 41, 42, 43 the offences alleged in the present case of cheating and criminal 10 breach of trust cannot co-exist simultaneously and it is stated that on this ground alone, the FIR is to be quashed.
14. It is further brought to the notice of the Court that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically noted that whenever a case arises from an F.I.R., this responsibility is on the police to thoroughly ascertain whether the allegation levelled against the informant falls under the category of cheating or criminal breach of trust. The Court also directed that the police officers across the country should be imparted proper training to understand the fine distinction between the offence of cheating viz a viz. criminal breach of trust.
15. The prosecution case in short is that a complaint was filed by Dutch Consultants Innovation (DCI) alleging large- scale financial fraud committed through fraudulent over-the- counter (OTC) cryptocurrency transactions. The accused persons, acting in conspiracy, induced the complainant to invest substantial sums under the false representation of assured token allocations and guaranteed profits.
16. In 2024, accused Mohammed Waseem approached DCI claiming privileged access to OTC cryptocurrency and deals directly from project teams. To gain confidence, small initial transactions were honored through private Telegram Channels 11 with screenshot functionality disabled, thereby preventing record retention.
17. A personal meeting between Waseem and DCI representatives in Dubai (April 2025) further enhanced credibility. Subsequently, accused Vaibhav Gupta and Saurabh Diwan were introduced as intermediaries, falsely assuring guaranteed token delivery and profits. Gupta misrepresented himself as being affiliated with Binance, which was later found to be false.
18. The accused persons collectively projected fake allocations in multiple reputed block chain projects and induced the complainant to reinvest principal amounts along with alleged profits, ultimately leading to large-scale financial exposure.
19. Investigation revealed that Ravindra Kumar was the actual OTC facilitator to whom funds were routed. Ravindra admitted to booking substantial losses and failing to deliver tokens and profits as promised. Despite this, the accused persons continued to mislead the complainant using fabricated regulatory explanations and forged documents to conceal losses.
20. As a direct consequence of the fraudulent acts :-
USD 6,565,245.80 was lost through Mohammed Waseem USD 2.1 million through Vaibhav Gupta 12 USD 1.68 million through Saurabh Diwan Total losses to DCI amount to approximately USD 10.34 million.
21. Forensic examination of electronic devices belonging to Mohammed Waseem revealed Telegram and WhatsApp communications advertising fake OTC deals and directing investor funds to Ravindra Kumar via Binance and Bybit exchanges. Transaction data obtained from Bybit Fintech Ltd. through the Sahyog Portal conclusively corroborated:
Wallet ownership of Ravindra Kumar and Mohammed Waseem Flow of funds from DCI to Waseem and onward to Ravindra KYC details, email IDs, passport numbers, and transaction hashes Analysis confirmed deposits exceeding 20.7 million USDT from Waseem to Ravindra and 5.66 million USDT from DCI to Waseem during the relevant period.
22. Accused Vaibhav Gupta admitted to collecting approximately USD 39.5 million USDT from DCI and other investors and transferring the same to Ravindra Kumar, while 13 earning commissions. He also admitted personal losses due to Ravindra's default.
23. Records from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs confirm Aza Ventures as a subsidiary of Aza Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., with Mohammed Waseem and Latifa Bano as directors and ultimate beneficiaries. Website and branding analysis establishes that the "Aza Ventures" name was used to falsely to project corporate legitimacy for the fraudulent activities. FINDINGS :
24. Sections 316 and 318 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are the offences relating to criminal breach of trust and cheating, and define the offences as follows :-
"316. Criminal breach of trust. - (1) Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits criminal breach of trust.".
"318. Cheating. - (1) Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to cheat.".14
25. The difference being that Section 316 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is attracted when initial arrangement/transaction, etc. is not conducted with any mens rea of criminality, there being an entrustment. It is here that the subsequent occurrence of incidents, which leads to the criminal offence. So here the initial/start is based on trust, of which there is alleged breach, with or without mens rea.
26. On the other hand, the offence of cheating under Section 318 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita requires criminal intent right from the beginning, when the transaction takes place.
27. In a case of cheating, an accused enters a business arrangement/transaction, etc. with mens rea of committing offence. His intention right from the start has the ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 318 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
28. In the present case, at the stage of quashing, without going into details, it appears that the transaction in this case has allegedly started by creating an "initial facade of legitimacy" and the initial interaction "reinforced the trust and confidence" in the accused persons.
29. Thus the prima facie ingredients required to make out a case under both the Sections is present in respect of all the 15 accused persons, being a "mixed bag of facts" as it involves several transactions.
30. The complainant alleges that he acted upon "the repeated assurances, misrepresentations, and carefully narrative of trust".
31. It is the complainant's further case that the complainant initially invested smaller amounts, which were deliberately fulfilled by the accuseds to establish false credibility, thereby inducing the complainant into making significantly larger investments subsequently, which led to being prima facie cheated, leading to the present case. Thus it appears that though the victims were initially induced, the accused persons all along, right from the initial stage, prima facie had the mens rea to cheat.
32. The alleged loss in this case is in more than 10 (ten) millions of USD.
33. It is at this stage, the argument of Mr. Ramakrishna Srinivasan made to the effect that in view of the judgment in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors (Supra), the F.I.R. in this case has inherent defect as both the offences being Sections 316 and 318 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita have been put together in the F.I.R. and they cannot co-exist together [Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors (Supra)] is to be considered. 16
34. It prima facie appears from the written complaint that it is stated therein :-
"It is alleged that though there were acts of "trust"
initially, the complainant then realized that the accused right from inception had the mens rea to cheat."
35. In S.N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors - versus - State of Karnataka & Anr., 2025 INSC 917, the Supreme Court held that :
"37. Purely from a legal lens, it is now settled that the same person cannot be simultaneously charged for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC with regard to one particular transaction, as per the decision rendered in Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited (supra). In this regard, reference may also be made to a subsequent decision by us in V D Raveesha v State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 1060 (penned by Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.), which noticed the exposition in Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited (supra). In V D Raveesha (supra), the distinction between Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC was duly taken note of, but charges under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC against the same person were upheld, not being part of a single transaction and committed against different persons. The relevant passage from V D Raveesha (supra) reads thus:
'21. Though, having regard to the afore- enumerated position of law, on an overall conspectus of the factual aspects juxtaposed with the evidence on record, as regards fulfilment of the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC, at first sight, it may appear that the petitioner cannot be convicted both under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC, but, in the present case, on a proper consideration of the issue in its entirety, there is a fine distinction inasmuch as, there are two different persons against whom the petitioner has committed the respective offences under the Sections supra:17
first, the Company and second, Mallikarjuna (PW4 and husband of purchaser Savithramma). Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, evidently the petitioner is guilty of offence committed against the Company punishable under Section 406 of the IPC and also, of offence committed against Mallikarjuna (PW4 and husband of purchaser Savithramma) punishable under Section 420 of the IPC.' (emphasis supplied)."
36. Thus keeping in mind the arguments made including the written notes filed by the parties herein, and the judgments relied upon, moreso, the judgment in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors (Supra) and para 37 of S.N. Vijayalakshmi (Supra), this court is of view that as observed by this court in para 28 and 29 of this order, in respect of the offences under Section 316 and 318 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the facts of the case at this stage is prima facie a mixture of both offences which clearly involves several transactions; and it would be an abuse of the process of law/Court to interfere with the F.I.R. at this stage of investigation, which also involves digital and financial evidences being prima facie an economic offence.
37. Mr. Abhishek K. learned Counsel representing accused Ravindra Kumar submits that this itself proves that the written complaint has been drafted by an expert who appears to be an advocate, and who has ensured that the complaint is written in 18 such language/drafting incorporating facts (not correct) which would form the strong basis of the complaint containing the ingredients required to prima facie make out the offences alleged. But it is stated that it has been done with entirely false statements.
38. In support, the following judgments are relied upon :-
(i) Mahmood Ali Vs State of UP (2023) 15 SCC 488;
(ii) Salib vs State of U.P (2023) 20 SCC 194;
(iii) Malavika Periyaswamy vs state of Karnataka, 2025 SCC Online Kar 4442;
(iv) Mohd Wajid vs State of UP (2023) 20 SCC 219.
39. About the drafting designed to make out the offences alleged, it requires evidence to be adduced to assess the truth of such allegations.
40. The question of the complaint being clearly drafted by an expert is not a ground for quashing of a proceeding of such cases prima facie involving economic offences of this magnitude, as such investigations are in public interest.
41. Mr. Abhishek K, further submits that the transaction between the parties is entirely a business transaction (commercial dispute) and thus civil in nature and as such a criminal case does not lie.
19
42. In support the following judgments are relied upon :-
(i) Usha Chakraborty vs. State of W.B (2023) 15 SCC 135;
(ii) Naresh Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC online SC 268;
(iii) Lalit Chaturvedi Vs State of U.P,2024 SCC online SC 171;
(iv) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335;
(v) Paramjeet Batra Vs State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673.
(vi) G. Sagar Suri And Anr vs State of UP. And Ors (2000) 2 SCC 636
(vii) Dinesh Gupta v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
2024 SCC OnLine SC 34
(viii) Manish vs State of Maharashtra and Another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 707
(ix) Rikhab Birani and Another versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 823
(x) M/s. Todays Vidyarthi Shera Bazar & Ors. Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr. in CRR 2648 of 2022 20
43. Admittedly, the entire transaction leading to the alleged loss as stated is based on oral agreement.
44. There being no written document to substantiate the basis of the transaction and the understanding between the parties, it is for the investigating agency to unearth, as the investigation at this stage is still ongoing.
45. The offences alleged in this case is in respect of "large scale financial fraud committed through fraudulent over- the-counter (OTC) cryptocurrency transactions.
46. Thus, regarding the argument that the dispute being prima facie civil in nature arising out of (oral) commercial (business) transaction, a criminal case cannot be permitted to continue, cannot be accepted at this stage considering the magnitude of the offences alleged leading to prima facie loss if almost 10 million USD in cryptocurrency.
47. The Supreme Court in S.N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors - versus - State of Karnataka & Anr. (2025 INSC 917), also held :-
"42. Coming to the second question i.e., whether civil and criminal proceedings both can be maintained on the very same set of allegations qua the same person(s), the answer stricto sensu, is that there is no bar to simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings. If the element of criminality is there, a civil case can co-exist with a criminal case on the same facts. The fact that a civil remedy has already been availed of by a complainant, ipso facto, is not sufficient ground to quash an FIR, as pointed out, inter alia, in P Swaroopa Rani v M Hari Narayana, (2008) 5 SCC 765 and Syed Aksari Hadi Ali 21 Augustine Imam v State (Delhi Admn.), (2009) 5 SCC
528. The obvious caveat being that the allegations, even if having a civil flavour to them, must prima facie disclose an overwhelming element of criminality. In the absence of the element of criminality, if both civil and criminal cases are allowed to continue, it will definitely amount to abuse of the process of the Court, which the Courts have always tried to prevent by putting a stop to any such criminal proceeding, where civil proceedings have already been instituted with regard to the same issue, and the element of criminality is absent. If such element is absent, the prosecution in question would have to be quashed. In this connection, Paramjeet Batra v State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673 can be referred to:
'12. ... Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.' (emphasis supplied)
43. In Usha Chakraborty v State of West Bengal, (2023) 15 SCC 135, while quashing the FIR therein and further proceedings based thereon, it was observed '...the factual position thus would reveal that the genesis as also the purpose of criminal proceedings are nothing but the aforesaid incident and further that the dispute involved is essentially of civil nature.'"
48. In the present case, the materials in the case diary and offences alleged which involves economic offences of huge magnitude, it appears prima facie that "over whelming element of criminality exists".
22
49. A culpable mental state on concurrence with a voluntary act is required to proceed criminal intent.
50. A direct link of the required state of mind and voluntary acts is also present in this case, which prima facie proceeded resulting are harm and injury to another person and also society.
51. The four core elements of a crime are Actus Reus (the guilty act), Mens Rea (the guilty mind/intent), Concurrence (the act and intent must happen together), and Causation (the act must cause the resulting harm). These elements, defined by statutes, must generally be present to establish criminal liability, proving someone committed a harmful act with the required mental state.
52. These elements are prima facie evident from the materials on record in respect of the offences alleged against all the accused persons, thus ruling out quashing of the proceedings at this stage.
53. On perusal of the materials in the case diary, it appears that there is sufficient evidence collected by the investigating agency at this stage to prima facie make out the offences as alleged against all the accused persons, thus clearly ruling out quashing of proceedings at this stage.
23
54. C.R.R. 33 of 2025, C.R.R. 34 of 2025 and C.R.R. 45 of 2025 stand dismissed.
55. List CRM(A)/4/2025 (IA NO: CRAN/1/2025) for hearing before the next Circuit Bench.
56. Passports retained in this case be handed over to the investigating officer at once, which shall not be returned to the accuseds without permission of the Special Court.
57. The interim order of 'No Coercive Steps' against the accused persons to remain in force till 10th of January, 2026, to enable the accuseds to approach the appropriate forum for protection.
58. The order of 'No Coercive Steps' shall stand vacated on 11th January, 2026, permitting the investigating agency to proceed in accordance with law.
59. It is further directed that the accused persons shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Trial Court.
60. Connected application, if any stands disposed of.
61. The Investigating Agency in this case shall not be influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order and shall come to its own independent findings by due process of law.
24
62. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, may be supplied to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.
[ SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J. ]