Karnataka High Court
Mr Anas Ahmed vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 November, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No. 10342 OF 2021 C/W
WRIT PETITION Nos. 11038/2021 AND 10986/2021
(GM-RES)
In WP No.10342/2021
BETWEEN
Mr. Anas Ahmed
Son of Abdul Ghaffar,
Aged about 37 years,
Residing at No.306, Swiss Town,
Near Clarks Exotica,
Sadahalli Gate, Devanahalli,
Bengaluru-562110.
And also at
Partner of M/s. H and S Ventures Inc.
A Partnership Firm,
Having registered office at:
No.3C-1001, HRBR Layout,
1st Block, Banaswadi,
Bengaluru Urban,
Bengaluru, Karnataka-560043.
And also at
Partner of M/s. Clifford Ventures
Registered office at
No.4C-001, HRBR Layout,
1st Block, Banaswadi,
Bengaluru-560043.
...Petitioner
2
(By Sri N.K.Modi, Senior Advocate for
Sri Mohd. Kamran Khan, Advocate)
AND
1. The State of Karnataka
By CID, Cyber Crime Police
Carlton House, Palace Road,
Bengaluru
Represented by its
Government Pleader,
High Court Complex,
Bengaluru-560001.
2. Abhishek Abhinav Anand,
Advocate
KAR/1731/2015
Son of Abhinav Anand
Aged about 28 years,
Company Executive/
Authorized representative
Razorpay Software Pvt. Ltd.,
1st Floor, SJR Cyber No.22,
Laskar Hosur Road,
Adugodi, Bengaluru-560030.
And also residing at
No.263/1, 2nd Cross,
2nd Block, Jayanagar,
Bengaluru-560001.
...Respondents
(By Sri V.M.Sheelvant, SPP-I a/w
Sri P.Thejesh, HCGP for R1;
Sri Anant Garg, Advocate for R2)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. praying to quash entire FIR in Crime
No.08/2021 registered on 01.06.2021 by the R1 Cyber
3
Crime Police Station CID against the
petitioner/accused No.2 and 3 herein for the offences
punishable under Section 66D of Information
Technology Act and 420 of Indian Penal Code on the
file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at
Bengaluru.
In WP No.11038/2021
BETWEEN
1. Mr. Afsal K.,
Son of Ashraf K.,
Aged about 20 years,
No.S-02, Daffodil,
Nethaji Road, Frazer Town,
Bengaluru.
Permanent address at
V.K.House, Vallikunnu Northy,
Malappuram, Kerala-673314.
2. Mr. Arokianathan,
Son of Edward
Aged about 51 years,
No.1016, GKRK Building,
Anniya Reddy Layout,
2nd Cross, Horamavu,
Bengaluru-560043.
3. Mr. Ramachandran,
Son of Ananthraman,
Aged about 52 years,
No.1016, GKRK Building,
Anniya Reddy Layout,
2nd Cross, Horamavu,
Bengaluru-560043.
...Petitioners
4
(By Sri N.K.Modi, Senior Advocate for
Sri Mohd. Kamran Khan, Advocate)
AND
1. The State of Karnataka
By CID, Cyber Crime Police
Carlton House, Palace Road,
Bengaluru
Represented by its
Government Pleader,
High Court Complex,
Bengaluru-560001.
2. Abhishek Abhinav Anand,
Advocate
KAR/1731/2015
Son of Abhinav Anand
Aged about 28 years,
Company Executive/
Authorized representative
Razorpay Software Pvt. Ltd.,
1st Floor, SJR Cyber No.22,
Laskar Hosur Road,
Adugodi, Bengaluru-560030.
And also residing at
No.263/1, 2nd Cross,
2nd Block, Jayanagar,
Bengaluru-560001.
...Respondents
(By Sri V.M.Sheelvant, SPP-I a/w
Sri P.Thejesh, HCGP for R1;
Sri Anant Garg, Advocate for R2)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. praying to call for lower court records in Crime
5
No.08/2021 registered by R1 police for the offences
punishable under Section 66D of Information
Technology Act and 420 of Indian Penal Code and
Sections 21 and 23 read with 3 and 5 of the Banning
of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, pending on the
file of the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, at
Bengaluru and etc.
In WP No.10986/2021
BETWEEN
1. Mrs. Hu Xiaolin,
Wife of Anas Ahmed
Aged about 35 years,
China Passport No.E83749100
Residing at #366, Swiss Town,
Near Clarks Exotica,
Sadahalli Gate, Devanahalli,
Bengaluru-562110
2. 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,
Bengaluru-560087.
...Petitioners
(By Sri N.K.Modi, Senior Advocate for
Sri Mohd. Kamran Khan, Advocate)
AND
6
1. The State of Karnataka
By CID, Cyber Crime Police
Carlton House, Palace Road,
Bengaluru
Represented by its
Government Pleader,
High Court Complex,
Bengaluru-560001.
2. Abhishek Abhinav Anand,
Advocate
KAR/1731/2015
Son of Abhinav Anand
Aged about 28 years,
Company Executive/
Authorized representative
Razorpay Software Pvt. Ltd.,
1st Floor, SJR Cyber No.22,
Laskar Hosur Road,
Adugodi, Bengaluru-560030.
And also residing at
No.263/1, 2nd Cross,
2nd Block, Jayanagar,
Bengaluru-560001.
...Respondents
(By Sri V.M.Sheelvant, SPP-I a/w
Sri P.Thejesh, HCGP for R1;
Sri Anant Garg, Advocate for R2)
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 and
227 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. praying to call for lower court records in Crime
No.08/2021 registered by R1 police for the offences
punishable under Section 66D of Information
Technology Act and 420 of Indian Penal code and
Sections 21 and 23 read with 3 and 5 of the Banning
of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, pending on the
7
file of the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, at
Bengaluru and etc.
These Writ petitions having been heard and
reserved on 26.10.2021, coming on for
pronouncement this day, through video conferencing
the court pronounced the following:
ORDER
These writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of Cr.P.C are filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No. 8/2021 registered by Cyber Crime Police, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under section 66D of the Information Technology Act, section 420 of Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 5 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act. The FIR was lodged at the instance of the second respondent.
2. Accused 2 and 3 are the petitioners in W.P.10342/2021. Accused 3, 5 and 17 have filed W.P.11038/2021 and accused 19 and 20 have filed W.P.10986/2021.
8
3. The second respondent lodged FIR on behalf of company namely Razorpay Software Private Limited which is engaged in the business of payment gateway aggregation, developing and implementing payment solutions, facilitating the initiation and receipt of electronic payments, including but not limited to payments effected through credit cards, debit cards, net banking, prepaid instruments and payment methods offered by and routed through the infrastructure established by NPCI. It lodged complaint against 12 entities of merchants the petitioners are a few of them. It is alleged that the petitioners as also some other merchants represented to the company that they were running business in specified categories as mentioned in the FIR and that they defrauded the company by using computer resource by deviating the business from the original category registered by them with it and started 9 routing their transactions to collect payments from a different business called 'Power Bank' which is an app listed in the Google Play Store. The company came to know that certain individuals invested money in 'Power Bank' to earn certain percentage of daily and weekly interest. But the petitioners, after accepting the investment neither paid the interest nor returned the principal amount. Thus the petitioners cheated the company and Razorpay and the customers who invested money.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has taken a preliminary objection to the locus of second respondent to lodge an FIR on the ground that the second respondent was a practicing advocate and cannot represent a private company. His submissions were that the petitioners and others have filed a suit O.S.3017/2021 in the City Civil Court, Bengaluru, against the company Razorpay Limited and ICICI Bank 10 for declaratory relief and therefore the FIR being subsequent to suit was as a result of a conspiracy to fix the petitioners in a false case. He submitted that the petitioners are carrying on business on on-line platform and their clients or customers have been provided with a legitimate platform and services to play rummy games including skilled games both in cash and non-cash avenues. The performers' money is safely secured and transacted via bank accounts and other approved digitally transfer modes. There is no direct or specific allegation against the petitioners. None of the customers has lodged a complaint and the quantum of amount lost by the customers is also not mentioned. The Razorpay gateway payment company is transferring and blocking transactions without authority of law by breaching the terms which is causing extreme heavy loss to the petitioners business and its customer. The loss has been estimated to an 11 extent of 1.5 crores. The second respondent has suppressed material facts and played fraud. Therefore it is his argument that the contents of FIR do not indicate any offence being committed. Investigation is nothing but abuse of process of law and court and hence the petitions are to be allowed. In the written arguments the learned counsel has referred to certain subsequent events which are not necessary for disposal of these petitions.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that respondent No.2 is no longer an advocate. He started working in a company by stopping the practice and therefore the FIR lodged by him cannot be said to be bad as he cannot represent the company. He further submitted that FIR clearly discloses the manner in which the petitioners deviated the money and cheated Razorpay. The grounds that the petitioners have taken cannot be considered for 12 quashing the FIR. Investigation is absolutely necessary and therefore the writ petitions are to be dismissed.
6. The State Public Prosecutor also submitted that considering the nature of allegations made against the petitioners, investigation is necessary. Section 482 Cr.P.C is not meant for stalling the investigation and therefore the petitions are to be dismissed.
7. Having heard the arguments with regard to the locus standi of the second respondent to lodge an FIR, it is to be stated that the second respondent has stated in his objection statement that because of covid pandemic situation, most of the offices, including the office of Karnataka Bar Council were not working. He sent the intimation letter on 29.6.2021, but the letter of suspension of Bar licence was submitted much prior 13 to receipt of notice in the writ petitions. He has stated that there was no deliberate intention to cause delay in giving intimation to Bar Council. Thus he has some explanation. Anyway this issue cannot be considered so seriously, if at all there is any violation of code of conduct, the Bar Council will take action. But the fact remains that the second respondent is the authorized representative of the company 'Razorpay'.
8. On the factual aspect, the second respondent has alleged that the petitioners defrauded the company by deviating the business from the original category and that its platform was used for routing their business. These are all on-line transactions in regard to which thorough investigation is necessary to unearth the truth. The petitioners claim it to be their independent business, but the second respondent denies and claims that the company Razorpay has been defrauded. Self certification of the petitioners to 14 claim clean chit in the transaction cannot be considered for quashing FIR. It is well settled principle that power under section 482 Cr.P.C must be sparingly used at the stage of investigation. Money involved in the alleged transactions is very huge. Here is a case which requires thorough investigation.
9. The petitioners contend about the suit, and copy of the plaint is also produced. Suit is for declaration that the plaintiffs scheduled companies/ventures are legal entities in the eyes of law and for permanent injunction. Mere pendency of suit is not a bar for taking criminal action. Sometimes the transactions are such that both civil and criminal actions are permitted. It is contended by respondent No.2 that he had lodged FIR much before his company received summons issued in the suit. In the objection statement of respondent No.2, it is stated that suit was filed on 28.5.2021, that respondent No.2 received 15 suit summons on 23.6.2021 and that he had lodged FIR on 1.6.2021. Therefore the petitioners' allegation that FIR was registered as a counter blast to the suit cannot be believed.
10. From the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that all the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed, accordingly they are dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, do not survive.
Sd/-
JUDGE ckl