‘Money can’t end criminal trial’: Punjab and Haryana High Court in cyber fraud case

“Cyber crimes pose a grave and expanding threat to society, considering the pace and speed at which they are proliferating, leaving a trail of victims behind. Such offences not only affect digital infrastructure but also the integrity of financial systems and erode public confidence in electronic transactions,” the September 7 order read. 

Compromise with complainant

The state claimed that the complainant, one Sushil Kumar, reported that on August 20, 2025, he received a call on his mobile phone from another mobile number. The caller allegedly inquired as to whether he was interested in getting a credit card from a particular bank. Later, he received a link on WhatsApp from a phone number and allegedly entered the name of his mother and details of his own credit card, after which a form appeared. 

Later, an application was downloaded on his mobile, and he started receiving OTPs. With this, a total amount of Rs 99,461 was deducted from his account. The accused, however, later agreed to compensate the complainant and, with this, sought quashing of the FIR alleging cyber fraud. 

Arguments

Representing the accused, advocate Vikrant Malwal argued that the FIR was registered against unknown persons and did not attribute any direct acts of cyber fraud to his client, whose alleged role emerged only in subsequent investigation. 

Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal observed that the case cannot be put in the compartment of an individual or personal wrong.

He added that the dispute had been amicably resolved and keeping the trial continued would cause prejudice to both sides and would also destroy future prospects of the accused. He added that the quashing of the FIR would ensure return of the accused persons to constructive lives and pointed out that the complainant acknowledged full satisfaction when the accused agreed to compensate him. 

Additional advocate general Kshitij Bharati opposed the quashing of the FIR, based on compromise, submitting that during the course of investigation, the identity of three persons could not be established, though it was a matter of record that five persons were involved in the crime. It was further argued that the matter involving cybercrime could not be considered personal in nature and trial could not be terminated on the basis of alleged compromise.

‘Partial compromises’

The court said that it is a matter of “partial compromise” since three other accused have not been arrested so far and pointed out that the online frauds are committed across the nation and are impacting numerous unsuspecting victims and society at large. It added that the offenders use “sophisticated” technological means, making detection and recovery of the proceeds of crime increasingly difficult. 

Pointing out that the widespread use of digital platforms has increased the scale and speed of cyber crimes, the court said, “In no circumstances, the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners can be treated private in nature”.

It was observed that the case cannot be put in the compartment of an individual or personal wrong and held that the “compromise obtained by compensating the victim with money cannot provide the basis for quashing of the criminal proceedings by exercising inherent powers of the court”. 

The court added that quashing the FIR in such a case would be contrary to the interest of justice and society at large and held that cybercrimes are a “social wrong” and have immense “societal impact”. “The ultimate victim is the collective as such offences are hazardous to the financial interest of the society,” it added.